PRIVATE BUSINESS

Greenham and Crookham Commons Bill

Ordered,
	That the promoters of the Greenham and Crookham Commons Bill which originated in this House in the last Parliament but had not received the Royal Assent may, notwithstanding anything in the Standing Orders or practice of this House, proceed with the bill in the present session of Parliament; and the petition for the bill shall be deemed to have been deposited and all Standing Orders applicable to it shall be deemed to have been complied with;
	That the bill shall be presented to the House by deposit in the Private Bill Office no later than the fifth day on which the House sits after this day;
	That a declaration signed by the agent shall be annexed to the bill, stating that it is the same in every respect as the bill presented in this House in the last Parliament;
	That on the next sitting day following presentation, the Clerk in the Private Bill Office shall lay the bill on the Table of the House;
	That in the current session of Parliament the bill shall be deemed to have passed through every stage through which it had passed in the last Parliament, and shall be recorded in the Journal of the House as having passed those stages;
	That no further fees shall be charged to such stages;
	That the petition relating to the bill which stood referred to the committee on the bill in the last Parliament shall stand referred to the committee on the bill in the current session of Parliament;
	That no petitioners shall be heard before the committee unless their petition has been presented within the time provided for petitioning or has been deposited pursuant to Private Business Standing Order 126(b);
	That, in relation to the bill, Private Business Standing Order 127 shall have effect as if the words 'under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against bill)' were omitted.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]
	Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

Oral Answers to Questions

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

The Secretary of State was asked—

Drugs Trade

Dave Watts: If he will make a statement on the involvement of his Department in the campaign against the drugs trade.

Jack Straw: The Foreign and Commonwealth Office co-ordinates international anti-drugs activity for the United Kingdom. On 25 and 26 June, we hosted an international conference on the global economy of illegal drugs. We have a substantial programme of counter-drugs assistance overseas, which is directed at countries that produce or transport illegal drugs.

Dave Watts: I thank my right hon. Friend for his response. Does he agree that it is crucial that drug barons' assets can be seized in any country? What action are the Government taking to press other countries throughout the world to take similar action to that which we propose to take, whereby we can seize the assets of drug barons? Does he share my amazement at Opposition Members, who seem to be opposed to such legislation?

Jack Straw: As my hon. Friend notes, the Government are committed to introducing legislation to facilitate the confiscation of drug barons' assets. Much work is going on with our European Union partners and countries throughout the world to strengthen the arrangements for mutual legal assistance so that we can ensure that such drug dealers and transporters are convicted in many countries.
	My hon. Friend asks me to express amazement at the stance being taken by a number of Opposition Members. I am sorry to say that I am not amazed by anything that candidates for the Conservative party leadership are getting up to.

John Wilkinson: Can the Foreign Secretary assure the House that Her Majesty's Government are not merely doing everything they can to assist the coca eradication programmes in Andean countries such as Colombia, Peru and Bolivia, but pursuing proper replacement strategies, otherwise, poor people, farming communities and the peasantry will be further impoverished?

Jack Straw: Yes, I can. We are working closely with, for example, the Colombian Government following the change of presidency in 1998. I accept entirely what the hon. Gentleman says. We must not only have the eradication programmes but recognise the economic reliance of many poor people in those countries on the drugs trade. Therefore, we must ensure that that income stream is replaced by lawful income streams.

Rachel Squire: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware that Russia has recognised the massive problem that it has with the drugs trade. At a meeting earlier this year with Russian MPs in the Duma, it was made clear to me and to parliamentary colleagues that Russia is keen to co-operate far more fully with European countries to build an effective partnership. Have there been any recent discussions with the Russian Government on the issue, and are any initiatives planned?

Jack Straw: In my previous post as Home Secretary, I discussed the drugs trade—both through Russia and in it—with my opposite number in the Russian Federation. It has continued to be discussed in the G8. It will be discussed further by me and my Russian colleague when Foreign Ministers meet next week in Rome.

Western Sahara

Jenny Tonge: What recent representations he has made to the UN concerning the referendum in Western Sahara.

Ben Bradshaw: We supported United Nations Security Council resolution 1359, which was passed unanimously on 29 June and which extended the mandate of the UN Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara until 30 November 2001.

Jenny Tonge: I welcome the Minister to his new post.
	There seems to be some confusion in the Minister's Department about the referendum in Western Sahara. On 4 July, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) received a reply that indicated support for the framework agreement passed by the Security Council. On 5 July, the Government went back to the original position of supporting the UN settlement, which was for a free and fair referendum for the Saharawi people to take place as soon as possible—the settlement was reached 10 years ago. Does he not appreciate that the framework agreement means that the electorate for the referendum in Western Sahara will be increased by hundreds and thousands of Moroccan settlers and soldiers and therefore will not be a true referendum of the Saharawi people?

Ben Bradshaw: I am sorry if the hon. Lady is confused, but as far as we are concerned there is no confusion. The resolution is absolutely clear: it reiterates full support for the on-going efforts of the United Nation's mission to implement the settlement plan, and for agreements adopted by the parties to hold a free, fair and impartial referendum for the self-determination of the people of Western Sahara.

Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Minister assure the House, first, that there will be no further arms sales to Morocco until the situation in Western Sahara has been resolved and, secondly, that Britain will not take part in any operation to try to rewrite the 1974 census agreement on who should be allowed to vote in the referendum? As the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) rightly said, it must be for the Saharawi people, and only for them, to decide their future and their self-determination in peace. We do not want more of this constant delay; the UN operation has already been delayed for more than 10 years.

Ben Bradshaw: I am sorry to tell my hon. Friend that I cannot give him the first assurance that he seeks. All United Kingdom arms exports are approved under extremely strict European Union and UK guidelines: they are among the strictest in the world, and are being made even stricter by legislation currently passing through the House.
	As for the second part of my hon. Friend's question, there is absolutely no suggestion that the UK is giving up its commitment to self-determination for the people of Western Sahara.

EU Enlargement

Mike Hall: When he expects EU enlargement negotiations to be completed.

Jack Straw: The Gothenburg European Council agreed last month that we should make it possible to complete the negotiations by the end of 2002 for candidates that are ready. The objective is that those candidate countries should then participate in the European parliamentary elections of 2004, as members.

Mike Hall: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his appointment, and wish him well in his challenging job.
	I welcome the news that enlargement of the European Union can commence in 2002. I should like the Czech Republic to be one of the first members in that tranche. What steps will the British Government take, however, if the euro continues to be weak, to ensure that our economy does not suffer as a result of enlargement?

Jack Straw: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. He may like to know that the Czech Republic has closed 20 of the chapters for accession, and is among the first five or six countries in terms of its advance towards satisfactory accession. As for his second question, about the euro, he will know that just 11 countries are currently in it. Whether the accession countries come in will depend on whether they meet the criteria for the euro, and whether they decide to join. The assumption behind the question does not, therefore, arise for the moment.

John Redwood: I too congratulate the Foreign Secretary on his promotion.
	It is clear that the Irish people have voted no, so the treaty of Nice cannot be ratified. Does the Foreign Secretary not agree that it is a most important democratic principle that if a people are consulted in a referendum and vote no, "no" means no? Or does he belong to the new wonky school of democracy according to which, if the people give the wrong answer, they must be polled as many times as the Conservative party in the election of its leader, in the hope that they will change their minds?

Jack Straw: I made it perfectly clear during last week's debate on the European Communities (Amendment) Bill that the Irish people's decision in the referendum meant what it said—that they had rejected membership of the Nice treaty. [Hon. Members: "Ah!"] I cannot remember whether the right hon. Gentleman was in the Government at the time, as he was in and out so often; but in 1992, when he may have been—[Interruption.] We have now ascertained that the right hon. Gentleman was a member of the last Administration. In 1992 they decided, in the light of the Danish refusal to vote yes on Maastricht, to follow a similar procedure to that agreed by the 15 members of the General Affairs Council.

Francis Maude: We delayed the Bill.

Jack Straw: It is not about delaying the Bill; it is about the principle of the thing.
	At the General Affairs Council in mid-June, we agreed that we would stick to the text of the Nice treaty, while providing Ireland—if we could—with some accommodation in respect of its worries. [Interruption.] That was exactly the approach of the last Administration, and it is the approach that we have agreed to adopt. It remains to be seen whether in due course there is a further referendum for the Irish people, and whether they agree to the Nice treaty. If they do not, the treaty will not go ahead.

David Cairns: Has my right hon. Friend received any representations from business leaders on enlargement of the European Union? When I met business leaders in my constituency over the weekend, they were very keen that we move towards the speediest possible enlargement of the European Union. They recognise that access to new markets is good for jobs in my constituency and good for jobs in Britain.

Jack Straw: We have had a great many representations on enlargement from business leaders in the United Kingdom. Almost without exception, they support enlargement because of the benefits that it would bring to British jobs and to British business.

Cheryl Gillan: May I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his post? This month, in the Nice treaty debate, the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) berated my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) for not reading the Foreign Affairs Committee report, saying that had he done so,
	"he would know that six of the applicant countries had closed the chapter on agriculture."—[Official Report, 4 July 2001; Vol. 371, c. 282.]
	Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that the hon. Lady was completely wrong about the contents of her own report, and that, as the report states, even after all these years none of the candidates for enlargement
	"has yet resolved the thorniest issues: freedom of movement . . . agriculture, competition policy, transport policy, taxation, environment and budget"?
	Given the Foreign Secretary's very words today that the Nice treaty might not go ahead, rather than that enlargement will forge ahead, is not the cruel reality that EU enlargement is turning out to be a promise that ranks with the other great deceptions such as "the cheque is in the post" and "I will love you in the morning"?

Jack Straw: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her generous congratulations on my assumption of this post. I did not hear all of her last point—I heard only bits of it, about loving in the morning—so I shall let it pass. As for her point about whether chapters are open or closed, as I understand it my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South–West corrected herself. The truth is that none of the applicant countries has closed the chapter on agriculture. The hon. Lady is wrong, however, because a number of countries including Cyprus, Hungary, Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Slovakia have closed chapters on the free movement of goods, services and persons.

Derek Foster: May I welcome my right hon. Friend—a Euro-realist, like the Chancellor and me—to his new post? Does he recognise that there is huge enthusiasm among Labour Members for the completion of enlargement, as it will underpin emerging democracies in eastern Europe and force a very substantial renegotiation of the common agricultural policy? However, does he also agree that enlargement will make it all the more important that we approach the euro with caution, and will he ensure that at least the European Central Bank becomes far more transparent and that it begins to take employment and output into consideration in pursuing its inflation targets?

Jack Straw: I thank my right hon. Friend for his kind remarks. We believe that enlargement is very much in the interests of the United Kingdom, the applicant countries and the stability of the peace and security of Europe. I greatly regret the fact that the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) seemed to welcome the fact that there have been some temporary difficulties in the pathway to enlargement, as there always will be. The extraordinary achievement of the EU in the past 20 years is the way in which it has enlarged but still brought benefits to the people of Europe. We believe that that will be the case with the enlargement countries.
	It will also come as no great surprise to my right hon. Friend that I fully support the position on the euro set out by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his excellent speech at the Mansion House a few weeks ago.

Nice Treaty

Tim Loughton: If he will make a statement on progress with ratification of the treaty of Nice.

Peter Hain: The Gothenburg European Council reaffirmed that the ratification process for the treaty of Nice will continue so that the Union is in a position to welcome new member states from the end of 2002.

Tim Loughton: May I also welcome the Minister to his post and hope that he will be rather more forthcoming with answers to European questions than his boss?
	If the UK held a referendum on the treaty of Nice that resulted in a "no" vote, would he be happy for our EU partners to carry on regardless with the treaty? In which case, what is the point of holding any referendums in this country on Europe? Or is it just that he regards Ireland as a second-class partner?

Peter Hain: That was a pretty poor effort, Mr. Speaker. No referendum is planned on the Nice treaty, just as there was no referendum on the Amsterdam treaty or on the Maastricht treaty, which the Conservative Government took through and was constitutionally far more important and far-reaching than the Nice treaty. We respect the view of the Irish people and we await advice from the Irish Government on how they intend to take the matter forward.

John McFall: Does the Minister agree that those of us who support EU enlargement do not take lightly the Irish voters' rejection of the Nice treaty? Does he agree that one of the main issues is that the EU as an institution must be much more democratically accountable? Is it not important that we engage with Europe, as we will lose massive economic benefits in manufacturing in each of our constituencies if we do not ensure that EU enlargement takes place?

Hon. Members: What benefits?

Peter Hain: It is very interesting to hear the Opposition's catcalls of, "What benefits?"

Desmond Swayne: Well, tell us.

Peter Hain: I will tell the hon. Gentleman. More than 3.5 million jobs are dependent on our membership of the EU—

Nicholas Winterton: Rubbish!

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must be calm.

Peter Hain: Conservative Members do not understand why they were so roundly rejected by the electorate on 7 June. Membership of the EU has been enormously beneficial to Britain, and the many companies in the constituencies of Conservative Members that depend on exports to Europe or trade with Europe will hound them out of office if they persist with their policy, which is nothing less than a programme for withdrawal from Europe.

Anne McIntosh: Does the Minister share my assessment that one of the reasons why the Irish people turned down the treaty of Nice was that they benefit so greatly from the cohesion fund? Will he and his colleagues bring pressure to bear on Ireland, and other partners in Europe who benefit greatly, to share the prize of enlargement with us?

Peter Hain: May I very much welcome the hon. Lady's point, which for a change was a serious point about enlargement from a Conservative? She makes the point that enlargement has enormous benefits, not just for the accession states but for the British companies and jobs that will benefit from the enlarged market that will be created. The point she makes about the cohesion fund is important. A number of sticky issues need to be addressed as progress is made chapter by chapter, including the common agricultural policy and the structural funds.

Missile Defence

Malcolm Savidge: What recent discussions he has had with the US Administration on missile defence.

Jack Straw: I discussed missile defence with the US Secretary of State Colin Powell at the recent meeting of the North Atlantic Council and the European Council on 13 and 15 June. I look forward to renewing the discussions during my visit to Washington, for which I leave later today.

Malcolm Savidge: May I welcome and congratulate the Foreign Secretary on his appointment? More than 250 Members of Parliament have already signed early-day motion 23. With all due and delicate diplomacy, will my right hon. Friend convey to our United States allies the concern that star wars, in attempting to reduce a comparatively remote threat, might increase far graver dangers? There is also a wider worry: on a catalogue of vital issues the Bush Administration seem recklessly ready either to block or breach international agreements that are essential to a safer and more civilised future and, indeed, to George Bush Snr's vision of a "new world order."

Jack Straw: I thank my hon. Friend for his early remarks. I have of course read the early-day motion, and I recognise the concerns expressed in it. I must point out, however, that the motion endorses the unanimous conclusions of the Foreign Affairs Committee, which included a commendation of the Prime Minister's approach to the issue.
	President George W. Bush has made very clear—he set this out again at the NATO Council in June—his wish to proceed by co-operation and consultation not only with the United Kingdom and other European allies but with China, Russia and other major countries to the east. That is the right way forward.

Menzies Campbell: But does the Foreign Secretary understand that what unites Labour Back Benchers, Liberal Democrat Members and such influential figures in the Democratic party as Senator Joseph Biden, who has recently become the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee in the Senate, in their scepticism about missile defence is the prospect of unilateral action by the Bush Administration, when nuclear proliferation has been prevented by a network of treaties and collective agreements? What are the prospects, for example, of maintaining the nuclear non-proliferation treaty at its current level of effectiveness if the United States embarks on unilateral action of the kind proposed?

Jack Straw: I understand those anxieties. To some extent, they are underlined by the current uncertainties in the propositions from the United States. I note that President George W. Bush, in his speech on 1 May, said:
	"We have more work to do to determine the final form the defences might take . . . We recognise the technological difficulties we face".
	Given that there is such imprecision in what the United States is proposing, it behoves us, as long-standing allies of the US, not to come to conclusions until we are clear about what we are concluding about. That is why the process of consultation and co-operation that the Prime Minister set in train and that I shall continue tomorrow in Washington is the appropriate way forward.

David Winnick: Does my right hon. Friend accept that sometimes a good and firm ally of the United States should be willing to tell an American Administration when they are wrong? They are wrong over star wars, and we should have the courage to say so.

Jack Straw: It is very important not to generalise about the propositions and use the label "star wars". There has been a series of propositions, some of which are more likely than others to come into effect. Some, although they are on the table, may have no effect for 20, 30 or 40 years, as the American Administration are making clear.
	It ought, though, to be underlined that at the heart of the American propositions is their concern, which we share, that the world has changed in the past 30 years, with a much greater threat from rogue states. The threat from Russia is no longer perceived to be in any sense imminent, but we have to decide how to deal defensively with the threats that exist. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends agree that the appropriate way forward is not to commit ourselves on the nature of the US propositions until we know exactly what they are. That is what I shall be doing in Washington.

Francis Maude: I wish the Foreign Secretary well in his Washington discussions. I hope that they prove fruitful. We believe that a successful missile defence system is strongly in our interests and that the Government should be willing to commit themselves now, in principle, to working with our American allies to develop a satisfactory system. We appreciate the fact that this is a difficult issue for many Labour Members, but I want to make it clear that we will give the Government robust support if they choose to proceed in that way. Is the Foreign Secretary in favour, in principle, of missile defence?

Jack Straw: I would probably rather go naked into a conference chamber than with the robust support of the right hon. Gentleman.

Kali Mountford: Does my right hon. Friend accept that concern about nuclear missile defence is not confined to the House? In their letters to me, my constituents have expressed three main anxieties, which I hope that my right hon. Friend will raise with the Americans on my behalf. They are worried that the proposed system will not be successful because it is technically flawed, that it will not achieve its aim of dealing with rogue states and that it could cause proliferation in those states that have nuclear weapons. Will my right hon. Friend hammer home those points on behalf of my constituents?

Jack Straw: The concerns that my hon. Friend has expressed are entirely understandable, and I shall certainly ensure that they are reflected in the discussions.

Cyprus

Simon Hughes: What plans the Government have for contributing to a lasting peace and constitutional settlement for Cyprus.

Peter Hain: The current United Nations settlement process offers the best chance of securing a just and lasting settlement in Cyprus, and we remain committed to supporting the UN's efforts. In conjunction with the US and our EU partners, we urge all concerned to engage positively.

Simon Hughes: Will the Minister confirm that, if all goes well, Cyprus should be able to complete accession negotiations with the EU by the end of next year, with a view to taking part in the 2004 European elections? Should not the clearest representations be made, through the Government of Turkey, to the Government of the self-styled "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" that unless that Government help to achieve a solution to the Cyprus problem they will not be able to participate in Cyprus's membership of the EU? Should not it also be made clear that the Turkish Government's own application for membership could also be harmed?

Peter Hain: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point that would bear careful study by the Turkish Government, and by the Turkish embassy here. The Government very much welcome the progress being made by Cyprus, which has completed 22 of the 31 chapters needed to qualify for accession. Cyprus is an old friend, and we want its accession bid to succeed.
	Those Conservative Members who want to block enlargement by holding up the Nice treaty are preventing friendly nations such as Cyprus, Malta, Hungary and Lithuania from enjoying the benefits of democracy, prosperity, stability and peace that EU membership brings. Cyprus would be among the first wave of countries to benefit from that membership.

Gerald Kaufman: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that the 27th anniversary of Turkey's invasion of Cyprus is approaching? For all that time, Turkey has been in illegal occupation of one third of a sovereign country that is a member of the Commonwealth and of the United Nations, and a prospective member of the European Union. Will he make it clear to the Turkish Government that the whole House considers that Turkey's admission to the EU remains out of the question as long as it is in illegal occupation of one third of Cyprus?

Peter Hain: My right hon. Friend is right to draw the attention of the House and of the Turkish Government to the fact that formidable obstacles remain to be overcome before Turkey can accede to the European Union through the enlargement process. Those obstacles must be dealt with so that we can move forward, which is what we want to happen. We want to work with the Turkish Government to ensure that the obstacles are overcome in a way that benefits all who would be penalised if they were allowed to remain.

Francis Maude: Will the Minister convey to the police and security forces in Cyprus the House's congratulations on their success in defusing, before any lives were lost, the rioting and regrettable violence that took place last week on the island's sovereign bases? What measures is he taking to ensure that the violence will not recur? Can he give the House a firm date by which he expects Cyprus to be able to accede to the European Union? Frankly, nothing that he has said so far gives any confidence that the process will be anything but slow.

Peter Hain: I shall certainly pass on the right hon. Gentleman's message.
	We are in close dialogue with Foreign Minister Kasoulides, whom I met earlier last week to discuss the Akrotiri antenna, which is being built on the salt lake there and has caused the difficulties. We made it clear through the environmental assessment that was conducted in 1997 that we see no problems to health or the environment as a result of the construction of that antenna. Obviously, we will want to make progress and resolve people's fears.
	On enlargement, if the right hon. Gentleman would enthusiastically support the Nice treaty and the accession of Cyprus, Malta and all those other states—which will realise that the Conservatives are opposing their accession to the EU—we might move faster. The progress that Cyprus is making should mean that it clears all the obstacles by the end of next year. If everything remains on course, enlargement will take place and Cyprus will participate in the 2004 European elections to become a fully fledged member of the EU, as we want it to be.

Stephen McCabe: Will my hon. Friend give us an assurance that the appalling violence that we witnessed last week will not be allowed to interfere in any way with British efforts to secure the peaceful resolution of the wider problems in Cyprus? I appreciate that many people in this country will have been horrified at what they saw, but we seek an absolute assurance that that will not interfere with the normal processes in which Britain is engaged to secure a peaceful resolution of the problems on the island.

Peter Hain: I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. We are working closely, in particular with the assistance of our special envoy, Sir David Hannay, with the United Nations and others—including the European Union—to involve Turkey, Cyprus and Mr. Denktash more positively in discussions to ensure that a settlement and the achievement of our objective and that of the UN, which is a bizonal, bicommunal Cyprus, are achieved.

EU Presidency

Owen Paterson: What plans Belgium has for its presidency of the Council; and if he will make a statement.

Jack Straw: Belgium has identified 16 priority areas for its presidency. I will place a list in the Library of the House.

Owen Paterson: Will the Foreign Secretary confirm whether one of those 16 areas is the proposal pressed by the Prime Minister of Belgium and his Finance Minister to establish a European tax to be levied throughout the European Union on the benighted citizens by unelected authorities in Brussels? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that if that proposal were put forward and pressed, he would use his veto to block it, as it is a fundamental principle of our democracy that there should be no taxation without representation?

Jack Straw: That proposal is not formally on the list, but perhaps the Prime Minister of Belgium has since expanded it to 17. I confirm what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made clear, which is that we are opposed to that European tax.

Owen Paterson: A veto?

Jack Straw: Hang on. It follows therefore that we will use all the powers at our disposal to ensure that that opposition is carried through.

Meg Munn: What plans does my right hon. Friend have to improve the accountability of European Union institutions to ensure that they are more relevant to the people of Europe?

Jack Straw: My first plan is to ensure that we better explain, in language that our constituents and citizens understand, the values of the European Union. We should get away from jargon and talk about the benefits that the EU has brought for jobs, security and peace in Europe. Nothing more undermines support for Europe than a retreat into jargon. As for institutional changes, frankly, I am sceptical whether, as if by magic, an institutional change in the necessarily complicated structure of Europe will secure popular support. The Nice European Council set a pathway leading to the intergovernmental conference in 2004, in part so that the institutions could be improved. We are participating in those discussions.

Ian Taylor: The Foreign Secretary's offer to go naked and the offer of my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) to love him in the morning are taking social liberalism a little too far.
	On the Belgian presidency, will the Foreign Secretary raise again during the Council meetings the question of the takeover directive which was lost by a tied vote in the European Parliament after 12 years of negotiations? The directive is a crucial opening up of the single market. It is absurd that the Germans ratted on an agreement that their Ministers had entered into, and in those circumstances the very essence and effectiveness of the European Union needs to be seen in the way that we react to it. I hope that the Foreign Secretary will take a lead to ensure that the directive rapidly goes back on to the agenda and that this time the Germans hold to the agreements entered into by their Ministers.

Jack Straw: The hon. Gentleman is better qualified to speak about social liberalism than me.
	I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about the takeover directive. There is a warning there for people who believe that increasing democracy inside the EU means increasing the power of the European Parliament. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made it clear in a speech in Warsaw that we see the European Union as a union of nation states. It is thus important that the principal power should remain with the Council of Ministers.

People Trafficking

Gareth Thomas: What further action he intends to take to combat trafficking in human beings.

Denis MacShane: We continue to work with our partners in Europe and across the world against the evil trade of people trafficking.
	This year for the first time, immigration service officials have been appointed to the staff of British embassies in Europe and 10 officials were sent to reinforce the state border service between Croatia and Bosnia—one of the key conduits for people trafficking. Furthermore, 21 members of the immigration service work as airport liaison officers overseas.

Gareth Thomas: First, I congratulate my hon. Friend on his promotion to the Front Bench.
	Does my hon. Friend recognise the continuing concern that Eurostar is being targeted by the mafia-like organisations that traffic in human beings? Can he tell us how successful the measures taken to increase security at Eurostar terminals have been, what further measures are under consideration and whether he agrees that it is co-operation not confrontation with our European partners that will be the key to dealing with this terrible trade?

Denis MacShane: I thank my hon. Friend for his congratulations. When I returned from Paris recently, I was extremely pleased to see British immigration officers at the Gare du Nord working to try to control that flow of traffic. That issue and the problems with Eurotunnel were raised by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary in Paris yesterday. That again proves the necessity for joined-up government between Britain and France to deal with that real menace—in contrast to the isolation and rejection of such integration and co-operation demonstrated by the Opposition.

Martin Smyth: We welcome the steps that have been taken to deal with human trafficking. Will the Minister also deal with slavery throughout the world, especially in Africa? Are the Government concerned about that? What steps have they taken to put pressure on international businesses to take a stand on the issue?

Denis MacShane: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his important question. I know of the great concern that he has shown over the years about slavery, especially in some African countries. The Government have taken the lead in supporting the UN convention and in applying the protocol on human trafficking. We are stepping up co-operation with several countries throughout the world to try to put an end to that evil trade.

John Smith: Is my hon. Friend aware of the claim that financial grants from international organisations, such as the European Union and the International Monetary Fund, are going to organisations in Bosnia, such as the HDZ, which then use the money to smuggle not only tobacco and drugs but human beings?

Denis MacShane: I am aware of those allegations and I shall address them when I visit Sarajevo later this week. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing them to the attention of the House. We have sent 10 British officials to work with the Bosnian state border police to try to damp down the problems of smuggling and people trafficking. Those problems touch many of us in our constituencies. That is why the first line of defence is overseas and why Britain must be engaged in Europe and throughout the world.

Ministerial Responsibilities

Graham Brady: If he will make a statement on the ministerial responsibilities within his Department for Africa.

Ben Bradshaw: Within the Secretary of State's overall responsibilities, Baroness Amos is the Minister for Africa. She is responsible for sub-Saharan African issues. I am the Minister responsible for north African issues and will answer questions on sub-Saharan Africa in the House.

Graham Brady: I congratulate the Minister on his new appointment. Does he agree that at a time of deepening crisis in Zimbabwe, and as Britain's diplomatic efforts in Africa have completely collapsed this week at the meeting of the Organisation of African Unity, it is extremely regrettable that the British Government's response has been to downgrade the ministerial responsibility for Africa from a Minister of State to two Under-Secretaries?

Ben Bradshaw: I do not accept for a moment that our diplomacy has failed, and the responsibilities are nothing new. My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) split the responsibility between sub-Saharan Africa and north Africa when he was a Minister. Indeed, under the previous Conservative Government, a Minister in the House of Lords, not in this House, had to answer to hon. Members. As I said, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State carries the primary responsibility for Africa, and the Prime Minister is extremely engaged in the subject.

Barbara Follett: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his new post. What steps are being taken to resolve the long-running land distribution conflict in Zimbabwe?

Ben Bradshaw: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that there is an urgent need for land reform, but the British Government believe that it must be within the ambit of the rule of law and that it must be sustainable and transparent. We have contributed £44 million to land reform in Zimbabwe since independence, and we have consistently said that we would support land reform in line with the principles agreed by the Government of Zimbabwe and international donors at the 1998 land conference. Sadly, Zimbabwe is not adhering to those principles.

Francis Maude: I welcome the Minister to his new responsibilities and congratulate him on his appointment. I also welcome the Government's statements that Africa will be a priority in their foreign policy, although I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) that the institutional arrangements set up do not suggest that; they send the reverse signal. There is so much in Africa, particularly in southern Africa, that is encouraging, given the number of countries that have become pluralist, multi-party democracies, that are embracing the open economy and that are flourishing. We understand the desire of the old Organisation of African Unity to rebrand and relaunch itself as a new African Union as a signal of a new era, but does the Minister agree that the decision of the Foreign Ministers of that union to give full support to President Mugabe's tyrannical and ruinous regime is as bad a start for the new organisation as it could possibly have? A generation ago, Africa was wealthier per capita than Asia; since then, the position has been reversed. How will the Minister convey the message that success in today's world lies in embracing the rule of law, democracy and the open economy? Mugabe's regime and the OAU's support for him contaminates the whole continent.

Ben Bradshaw: The right hon. Gentleman should view the statement by the African Union, as it now calls itself, in the context of its desire to maintain unity, but he and all hon. Members know that many countries in Africa, and many people in Zimbabwe, share our deep concerns about the Zimbabwean human rights record, want that country to move swiftly towards free and fair elections and feel very sad about the state of the Zimbabwean economy.

David Lammy: I welcome the Minister to his new post. Can he assure me and my constituents, many of whom are African, that Africa remains a top priority and that conflict resolution and the formation of civil society across Africa is at the top of his agenda?

Ben Bradshaw: Yes, Africa remains a top priority. The Opposition were rather unfair about my noble Friend Baroness Amos, who will be an excellent Minister and has already shown great energy. She has met a succession of African leaders and will visit Nigeria shortly. As I said earlier, the Prime Minister has held a summit with President Mbeke of South Africa. We are very supportive of the formation of the new African Union, and the Prime Minister will take the recommendations that come from the meeting of the African Union this week to the forthcoming G8 summit in Genoa.

NATO

Nicholas Winterton: When the Secretary of State will next meet the United States Secretary of State to discuss the future of NATO.

Ben Bradshaw: Tomorrow.

Nicholas Winterton: I am grateful for that brief and succinct reply. Last year, the Secretary of State for Defence gave the impression that defence spending among European Union nations would increase. Why have the International Institute for Strategic Studies and President Bush of the United States both noted that European defence spending is, in fact, falling? Is it not now essential to repair the damage done to US-British relations by the Labour Government's desire for a European army?

Ben Bradshaw: No damage at all has been done to US-British relations. Perhaps President Bush is the best judge of that. He said:
	"The United States welcomes the EU's European Security and Defence Policy intended to make Europe a stronger, more capable partner in deterring and managing crises affecting the security of the Transatlantic community".

Mike Gapes: When Ministers meet their American counterparts, as well as welcoming the fact that the US Administration have changed their approach to the European defence policy, will they also welcome the fact that there appears to be a growing recognition, particularly in the Senate, of the importance of the American Government having a detailed discussion with Russia, and that any move beyond the anti-ballistic missile treaty should take place on the basis of co-operation, not unilateralism?

Ben Bradshaw: Yes. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already said, we welcome President Bush's willingness to engage not just with us and our European Union and NATO allies but with Russia and China on the important issues of international security.

Cheryl Gillan: I join other hon. Members in welcoming the hon. Gentleman to his post.
	May I ask the question another way? European Union politicians, such as the Belgian Foreign Minister, Louis Michel—whom I am sure the Minister knows well—talk openly and confirm that the real reason for the European army is to realise Europe politically with a European security and defence policy. Not just the International Institute for Strategic Studies but a succession of reports have shown that European defence spending, far from increasing to pay for better equipped forces, continues to fall by 5 per cent. a year in constant dollar terms. Notwithstanding the announcements to be made later today, spending on new defence equipment in Europe is at its lowest for decades and NATO officials have complained about gaping holes in our procurement. Therefore, does the Minister not think that it will be an uphill battle for the Secretary of State to prove to the Americans tomorrow that Europe's grand designs and diminishing defence spending will strengthen NATO rather than weaken it? Unfortunately, is it not true that NATO is not safe in the Foreign Secretary's hands?

Ben Bradshaw: There is rather a lot in that question. The hon. Lady and most of her colleagues on the Opposition Benches need to have a little more confidence, particularly in Britain's ability to win arguments with Belgian politicians. She has a serious point on European defence capabilities that was also made by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton). All of us in the House share the view that the European defence force and Europe as a whole need to improve their defence capabilities. That is partly a matter of spending more, but it is also a question of how we spend the money. At the moment, compared with the United States, we get very little capability for what we spend.

Kyoto Protocol

Tom Brake: What discussions he has had with his US counterpart on the Kyoto protocol.

Peter Hain: My right honourable Friend the Foreign Secretary will discuss the Kyoto protocol when he meets Colin Powell during his visit to Washington this week.

Tom Brake: Does the Minister agree that, while US initiatives to promote renewable energy through its Export Credit Agency are welcome, unless the US is willing to put together a detailed package of measures to achieve the CO 2 reductions that have been set for it in the Kyoto protocol, both President Bush and the companies, such as Esso, that backed him during his election campaign will find themselves increasingly isolated in the international community?

Peter Hain: We and the European Union continue to have an active dialogue with the American Administration on how their concerns and reservations about the Kyoto protocol can be addressed. No country, especially one that contributes up to a quarter of the world's emissions, can opt out of the problems. The planet faces a catastrophe unless we work together on climate warming and other environmental problems. The dialogue with the US and others is designed to achieve a solution to that.

Linda Gilroy: I welcome my hon. Friend's response. In making those representations, will he ensure that for every military and industrial adviser that the American Administration listen to, they listen to just three of the 3,000 scientists who have confirmed in a report to the United Nations that global warming is real? They say that it is causing increasing difficulties and inflicting growing costs that cannot be ignored or put on the back burner.

Peter Hain: I hope that everyone concerned takes note of American scientists, including those from the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, who made exactly the point that my hon. Friend advances. It is important that we all move together, which is why the European Union has been actively pursuing the issue. Incidentally, that is another reason why it is important for us to join together to ensure that the EU puts the environment at the top of its agenda, as it did in the communiqué from the Gothenburg summit.

Sydney Chapman: The Minister will be aware that the last US Administration agreed at Kyoto to reduce greenhouse emissions by 7 per cent. by 2020 on the 1990 levels. At the same conference the British Government commendably pledged to reduce them by 12.5 per cent. Before his right hon. Friend meets the US Secretary of State tomorrow, will he check by what amount greenhouse gases in Britain had been reduced when the commitment was made four years ago and by how much they have been reduced since then?

Peter Hain: We shall certainly check that. The hon. Gentleman draws attention to a wider issue. We all have a responsibility to make progress on reducing the emissions that cause such dangerous climate change and, if necessary, to put in place policies to do so. Simply because someone is not going along with that does not mean that the rest of us should not. His point is welcome in that context.

Plan Colombia

Tony Lloyd: What recent reports he has received about Plan Colombia; and if he will make a statement.

Denis MacShane: We continually monitor the situation in Colombia, including the implementation of Plan Colombia via our embassy in Bogota and our contacts with the Government and civil society in Colombia and the non-governmental organisations that work at home and abroad.
	On behalf of the House, I welcome the safe return of Alistair Taylor who was held by Colombian guerrillas for nearly two years and is now re-united with his family in Aberdeenshire.

Tony Lloyd: I join my hon. Friend in welcoming the release of Alistair Taylor.
	Colombia has been engaged in one of the bloodiest conflicts in one of the most prolonged civil wars. Does he accept that it is astonishing for the United States or Europe to believe that our drugs problems can be solved by beating the Colombian Government into intensifying an unwinnable civil war? Will he ensure that our message to the Colombians is that we and our European allies want to be partners in working to achieve an approach to peace that engages the guerrillas and the paramilitaries? If the war intensifies on the premise that we can solve our drugs problem, it will be at the expense of the ordinary people of Colombia who have been brutalised in this long conflict.

Denis MacShane: I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution at the Foreign Office and thereafter to solving the problem. The civil war in Colombia has been going on for 40 years, so it started well before drugs became a crucial feature of it. However, he is right to raise that issue. This country and the EU insist on recognising the social dimension to the problem because unless we find replacement jobs for the peasant farmers who grow the crops, they will be attracted to the idea of participating in the drugs trade.

John Bercow: I warmly congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his appointment.
	Given the verdict of the head of the United States Drug Enforcement Agency that Plan Colombia is not denting the supply of drugs to the United States, what steps is the Minister taking to encourage other Governments to assist the Colombian Government in their battle against the drugs menace and the activities that accompany it?

Denis MacShane: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words. He meant them sincerely, and I hope that praise from him will continue.
	This Government and other European Governments, which are all afflicted by the drugs trade—as our constituencies are afflicted—continue to make it clear to the Colombian Government that all measures must be used in their battle to end that trade, and that economic and social help must go hand in hand with direct attacks on the guerrillas responsible for some of the trade.

Disturbances, Bradford

David Blunkett: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the disorder in Bradford at the weekend.
	I believe that the response of the whole House will be to make it absolutely clear that we cannot and will not tolerate the wanton destruction and violence that we have witnessed over the last few days. The message must be unequivocal and unwavering: whatever the debate about alienation and disaffection, attacking the police, destroying the well-being of the local community and playing into the hands of organised groups will simply not be tolerated.
	The facts can be recounted briefly. The banning order on all marches and processions in Bradford for three months has been in force since 4 July. The police were aware of reports of extreme right-wing elements seeking to defy the ban. Fighting began in the town centre in the late afternoon as efforts were made to disperse an Anti-Nazi League rally. The fighting shifted from the city centre to the Manningham area in the early evening, by which time the police themselves were the focus for attack. Missiles, including petrol bombs that had clearly been prepared in advance, were thrown at the police by a mob numbering 400 to 500 at its peak; 164 police officers were injured; 36 people were arrested, only two of whom were from outside Bradford.
	On Sunday night and Monday morning the Manningham area was quiet. Subsequently there was a serious attack on a restaurant in the Ravenscliff area, and I regret to say that there was further disorder last night, involving youths throwing missiles in the Ravenscliff and Holmwood areas of the city. There have been 34 more arrests arising from disorder in the city since Sunday. The police commander at the scene spoke of "senseless violence and criminality"; I endorse his judgment and applaud the courage shown by the police in dealing with the situation.
	The damage to local businesses and the prosperity of the area will not be made good quickly. As always, the people who will suffer in the long run are members of the local community. We wish to work with the people of Bradford to restore calm and look to the future. But let me make it clear that a prerequisite for dealing with social ills or rebuilding confidence within the community is to take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that order is restored.
	Following the disturbances in Oldham and Burnley, I asked the Minister of State with responsibility for crime reduction, policing and community safety, my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), to draw together an inter-departmental ministerial group. This has met twice already. My right hon. Friend will today publish preliminary details of wider action proposed by the group in addressing the concerns in a range of communities throughout the country and the way in which, in conjunction with local people, the Government can do more to minimise the risk of further disorder.
	I wish to stress that we are not seeking to impose solutions from Whitehall or lift responsibility, which must rest at local level, but we are seeking from local communities possible ideas on how young people can be further aided in taking up opportunities for recreation and other activities over the summer and, in particular, measures that bring together different religious, racial, and community groups.
	I now propose to take that work a stage further. The ministerial group will undertake an urgent review over the summer of all the relevant community issues and will be supported by a small, dedicated review team of people with the right skills. That team will seek views from people on the ground in areas which have suffered from violence the most, as well as in other places with similar social and demographic features which have not. The aim will be to draw lessons which can inform future policy at national, local and community levels. The group will continue its work and will be complemented by the development of longer-term proposals from the performance and innovation unit based in the Cabinet Office.
	There are many lessons to be learned from the past, as well as present events. For the police, intelligence and practical planning issues are particular challenges. We now need to ensure that the professionalism and experience of our police service is made available quickly and effectively to prevent further disturbances. The Association of Chief Police Officers has already held one meeting of commanders under the auspices of the national operations faculty to establish what lessons can be learned not just in preventing but in bringing to a rapid conclusion the kind of disorder that we saw on Saturday evening.
	I will wish to discuss with ACPO how we might build on that initiative, pooling such experience and ensuring that operational commanders can find sources of advice immediately to help them to deal with the exceptionally difficult situation that they face. The vast majority of people in our society, regardless of their ethnic background, want the same things for themselves and their children. As we share a common citizenship, we have to find ways of working and living together in harmony. Our aim is to create an inclusive society, local communities which meet the needs of all groups, and a dialogue which transcends differences.
	Organised thugs from whatever background or standpoint undermine that possibility, and that is why the threat from them must be met head on. The message from today is that we will not accept the destruction of hard-won improvements in the most difficult areas of our country—and nor would local people forgive us if we do not provide them with the protection that they deserve.

David Lidington: I thank the Home Secretary for coming to the House to make a statement this afternoon. On behalf of the Opposition, may I associate my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself with his condemnation of the violence and the criminal attacks on both people and property in Bradford over the past few days? Does he agree that the fact that no fewer than 164 police officers were injured is a stark rebuke to those people who now allege that the police were in some way the perpetrators of the violence, rather than the service trying to restore order to the streets of Bradford? On behalf of the Opposition, I should like to offer support to the police, Bradford city council and others in Bradford who are working to restore order and the city's reputation for good community relations.
	Will the Home Secretary consider the part played by extremists of both right and left? Does he agree with several people in Bradford and some Labour Members that militant extremists from the self-styled Anti-Nazi League were out to inflame rather than heal divisions in Bradford last weekend?
	A couple of days ago, the Home Secretary talked about the possibility of equipping the police with water cannon and tear gas to cope with future riots. Is he still considering that? Have the police in West Yorkshire or elsewhere requested the provision of such equipment? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is too simplistic to brand events in Bradford the product of racial tension? I agree with him that the social problems that he described—poor education, lack of skills and poor opportunities—afflict young men from British Pakistani and British white homes alike. Those problems must be tackled but they do not for a moment justify the behaviour in Bradford on Saturday night and more recently.
	Will the Home Secretary launch an urgent inquiry into policing pressures in Bradford and elsewhere in West Yorkshire? Surely he knows that police numbers in the West Yorkshire force are nearly 400 lower than when the Government first took office. Even last year, the West Yorkshire police force lost more officers through resignation than it was able to recruit. Is he aware of local anxiety in Bradford that the police are too stretched to deal promptly and effectively with minor disorder, drug dealing and racist abuse on the streets? That encourages criminals and political extremists to be bolder.
	I assure the Home Secretary that if he takes the necessary steps to bolster the strength and effectiveness of the police force, he will deserve support from all parties.

David Blunkett: I welcome the first part of the hon. Gentleman's response. I am sorry that the second half degenerated into the party politics of police numbers. I want to make it clear that a lack of police did not contribute to the prolonged disorder on Saturday night. The number of police available was that requested from West Yorkshire police and neighbouring authorities throughout the north of England. Those numbers remain available; there are approximately 300 police on the streets. We are determined to ensure that they are there when needed.
	Under the crime fighting fund, we had already planned for 292 extra police, with 92 being appointed immediately. The local police authority was also contributing through the police grant and local resources so that the total increase this year was to be 400 extra police officers—far more than 200 when we had netted off any losses through those leaving.
	Last weekend was not caused by a lack of policing or police numbers. As I said earlier, we must deal with issues such as how to make the best use of experience, including that in the Metropolitan police. It is a question of how we can do that quickly and effectively when police commanders on the ground need it.
	The hon. Gentleman asked me about particular police methods and equipment. I want to make it clear—on a lighter note, the shadow Chancellor might share this belief—that we should not always believe what we read in The Guardian. Although plastic baton rounds and CS gas are available, I have never mentioned gas of any sort either publicly or privately to colleagues or journalists; so they made it up. I am interested in how we can use methods that are less of a risk than plastic baton rounds, which are available on the British mainland, but about which I have doubts in terms of public safety.
	I am prepared to consider other methods that would allow the police to deal quickly and effectively with mass disorder and a threat to life, limb and property. I shall receive reports and we will consider the issues carefully, but in the end, good intelligence and preparation, and the willingness of the local community to be part of the solution, will be the way forward. I think that the House will join me in wanting to find ways of preventing, predicting and then dealing quickly with any further incidents of this sort.

Terry Rooney: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. We must bear in mind the fact that what happened on Saturday was pure, wanton, mindless and criminal violence, but notwithstanding that, we can see the similarities between what has happened in Bradford, Oldham and Burnley. The common thread is the presence on the streets of far-right groups: the National Front and the British National party. Those organisations exist purely to foment racial hatred. We in Bradford have believed for many years that there is no place on the streets for fascists and Nazis. Is it possible to call on the full powers of the National Criminal Intelligence Service to track and control the movement of these fascist thugs? I believe that the time is coming when Parliament must seriously consider proscribing those organisations and removing that blight from our society. Communities such as Bradford will never feel safe as long as these people are about.

David Blunkett: I thank my hon. Friend, and I want to say to the people of Bradford how sorry we all are that they have had to endure these disturbances and have their well-being undermined and destroyed by others who came from outside to do so or threaten to do so, who were part of the cause. There is no question but that if the National Front had not sought a march and demonstration in Bradford, and if the reaction that led to the curtailment of the Bradford Vision festival had not been provoked, people would on Saturday have been living not only in peace and quietude but in racial harmony. They would have been enjoying themselves as part of that multiracial festival, which is drawing people together and building on the lessons of 1995.
	Yes, I am unequivocal in my condemnation, but I also ask those who seek to combat fascism to hold their hand carefully. I ask them to allow us to deal with public order and not to take it into their own hands. I agree that the National Criminal Intelligence Service and our security services will need to consider all those who threaten our democracy. If we can develop intelligence to know where and when they intend to destroy our community and racial harmony, we can take effective measures to stop them.

Simon Hughes: I thank the Home Secretary for his statement, which I endorse. I want to share with him from the Liberal Democrat Benches the feeling that, whatever the problems in the urban communities of our country, resort to violence, racism and intolerance of the sort that we saw at the weekend is an unacceptable response, wherever it comes from. I happily join with him and the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) in sending our support to the police and the elected representatives of the city of Bradford—the two groups that are most accountable for good order in that great city.
	Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with me that the city council, which I understand has already commissioned some work and some reports which are due out later this week, must receive the support that it needs and for which it has asked in dealing with the problems that it is aware of and is seeking to address?
	Slightly more broadly, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider that the responses that he proposes through the working group and the performance and innovation unit may before long be better dealt with by the Government's doing for urban policy what they sensibly did for rural policy after the election? That would involve finding a Cabinet Minister—it may be the right hon. Gentleman or a colleague—who would be responsible throughout the country for pulling together policy in urban and suburban areas. As the right hon. Gentleman rightly said in his statement, these matters are not only about law and order but about education, community relations and other factors.
	There is an important supplementary question that follows on from the remarks of the hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Rooney). As part of the review of policy—I do not go down the road of proscribing far-right or far-left organisations—can we consider the intelligence that relates to what has happened in recent months throughout the country, the links between the far right and occasionally the far left and community disorder, and the way in which we might be able to review public order legislation to make it less frequently possible for people to "exercise their rights", when actually they are seeking to provoke difficulty, tension and racism in urban communities? We must deal with those who have committed offences through the law.
	The other common thread is that many young people have taken to the streets, misbehaving and demonstrating clearly that they are willing to participate. Can we ensure that what they want to say about the future of their city and of their communities is listened to as much as what anyone else says, so that the next generation feels empowered in the process of developing their future? Wherever they come from and whatever their race, let us ensure that they do not feel that they are disengaged from, or have no stake in, the city or the town in which they belong and to which I am sure they want to contribute.

David Blunkett: I think that there were four key questions. On a slightly light note, after the past four and a half weeks, I feel that I have enough on my plate without taking on the whole of urban Britain. However, I take the point about the coherence of the response. That is why, both within the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and the Cabinet Office, we will want to pull together regeneration programmes with a review.
	We will want carefully to listen to young people. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State will include young people in the review group so that they are clearly represented and heard. However, it is my evidence—perhaps colleagues from Bradford will confirm it—that some of the hard core who were stimulating, organising and communicating the disorder on Saturday night were not young people who will join our review groups. That is because they are drug pushers and traffickers, and we need to deal with them head on.
	Yes, we will take on board Lord Ouseley's report. However, I hope that everyone will come forward with ideas for finding solutions, rather than merely posing questions for others to answer. Bussing children round cities to ensure multi-ethnic schooling is easier said than done. It was tried in Bradford and it has been tried extensively in north America, and on every occasion it has been abandoned.
	We all share an intent. Finding solutions that are acceptable in a democracy is entirely another matter. We would consider public order legislation, but, again, it is a difficult area. I said to the chief constable of Manchester after the Oldham incidents that the issue of when a march or assembly turns out to be a gathering of citizens goes back to 1815 and Peterloo. There are some difficult legal issues. I will happily consider them, but we have an interesting reversal of positions here: I am defending human rights and the hon. Gentleman is helping me to find the right balance between those who would destroy our society and those who have the right to demonstrate in it.

Marsha Singh: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. Does he appreciate the level of dismay and shock felt by me, my fellow Bradford MPs and the people of Bradford at what happened on Saturday? Does he appreciate how dangerous the situation now is in Bradford and how fractured community relations are? Does he agree that the vast majority of the Muslim community in Bradford are peaceful, decent and law-abiding and should not be scapegoated along with the mindless minority?
	I join my right hon. Friend in praising the police for their courage. I was there and I saw it. It cannot be right for our police forces to face for hour upon hour a sustained assault of bricks, bottles, powerful explosives and petrol bombs without being able to do anything about it. It cannot be right for a community to be laid siege to for hour upon hour when it needs emergency services. We have a duty of care to them, too. When my right hon. Friends consults chief officers about the need for water cannon on our streets, I hope that he will consult ordinary bobbies to see what they feel about it.
	Will my right hon. Friend look at giving areas such as Bradford, over and above the police complement, beat bobbies dedicated to troubled areas who work just that beat? May I ask him to understand our feeling that Bradford lies bleeding? It needs to heal. We need my right hon. Friend's support and the support of the whole House for that healing process to begin and to finish.

David Blunkett: I thank my hon. Friend, who puts it eloquently and with great feeling. What the people of Bradford need immediately is the quietness and calm that will enable the prosperity and the image of Bradford to be restored to what it was for several years following enormous efforts by the community, the business community and those who came together in the Vision platform. Let us take up my hon. Friend's suggestion and be able to respond to what is required within the community itself: the dedicated policing that he describes seems an admirable suggestion.
	It also seems that a wider community safety and disorder partnership is required, so that we can work with local people to identify those responsible, giving them the courage and protection that they need if they witness people destroying their neighbourhood and area. If we can come together and back people who witness those events, we will be able to see off those who have not only destroyed the immediate neighbourhood and people's prosperity and well-being, but created dangerous racial tension in Bradford and throughout the country. We are at a difficult moment. That is why getting it right quickly matters to all of us.

Teddy Taylor: As 34 of the 36 persons who were arrested were effectively local residents, are we not in danger of misleading ourselves by thinking that the prime responsibility lies with troublemakers from outside? Would it not be better for the Home Secretary to think carefully about the fact that, in all areas of Britain and the world where people are effectively segregated on the basis of religion, nationality or colour, there is always the potential for violence? All the Government's efforts should be aimed at trying to integrate the societies and stop having areas that are inhabited by one race or another race.

David Blunkett: I understand the hon. Gentleman's intention, which is being expressed more broadly at the moment, including in Herman Ouseley's report, but, as I have said, the question is how to achieve that aim. Those who have come into the country over the years—be they Jewish, Chinese, Irish, or latterly from the Caribbean, Pakistan, Bangladesh or India—have inevitably come together with family and cultural friends in the initial stages of their integration into society. It is difficult to break that up, given the availability of specific housing and support services. We all want to ensure that there is true integration, in which people understand cultural differences and diversity and the strength that they bring; but achieving that is another matter.
	Yes, it was primarily local people who—regrettably—were destroying their own community, and many of them will not be those who must experience the consequences that we must address. As with Oldham and Burnley, however, people came into Bradford to cause trouble. These people light fires and walk away from them, leaving others both to take the blame and to pick up the pieces. It is they who are our true enemy, and we should be clear about that.

Barry Sheerman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the work done over the years to build community relations in Bradford has been an exemplar for all of us? Living close to Bradford as I do, with a constituency close to Bradford, I much admire what has been done both by my colleagues in the House and by community leaders.
	Does my right hon. Friend also agree that, while most of the Bradford community hated all that happened on Saturday night, there are extreme and wicked people on all sides—in the ethnic minorities, on the right and on the left? They are a very dangerous mix: they will move across the Pennines, and from town to city, in order to stir up trouble in many different ways.
	Is it not time for us, as politicians, to ponder deeply what is happening, not just on the streets of Bradford? In the last few years, we have witnessed politics going on to the streets. I do not like that, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend does not. We have seen a wider phenomenon recently, internationally—in Gothenburg during the recent meeting there, and in Seattle during meetings of the World Bank and G7—and in our own cities, with "Reclaim the Streets" in the City of London. We ignore that wider phenomenon at our peril; if we do so, we shall fail either to understand or to combat it.
	I hope my right hon. Friend agrees that we need thought and firm action in equal measure.

David Blunkett: I entirely agree with the last suggestion.
	My hon. Friend is right: there is a danger of alienation from politics, politicians and democracy. I commented on that the day after the general election. One of the main things that alienate people from democracy is Government's inability to deliver the most basic requirement of all—order in communities, and the ability to live peacefully. It is important for us to establish that as a prerequisite.
	History shows us that those who wish to destroy society benefit most when there is disorder on the streets. That is a simple lesson not just from the last century but from long before. Those of us on the left who miss that key lesson from history delude ourselves into believing that the Weimar republic, or what happened in republican Spain, was some kind of accident. That is not so. The right flourished as a result of the disorder on the streets when the left failed to act.

Eric Pickles: I associate myself with what was said by the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Singh). For those of us who have great affection for Bradford, it was a shocking experience to see the television pictures at the weekend and to discuss the events with friends yesterday and today.
	I commend the Home Secretary's robust attitude to the extremists on both right and left who lit the fires and have gone away. Those of good intent will now have to put things right. I see one danger, however. Some newspapers have mentioned the suggestion that one solution would be to disperse people of Asian descent around the city. I am with the Home Secretary on this matter. I think that the idea of bussing or housing dispersal is anathema and plays right into the hands of racists.
	We have a vibrant community in Bradford. Some parts of the community come originally from the Indian sub-continent, but they are all an integral part of Bradford, and Bradford would be the less for it were they to be dispersed through either education or housing. It is our duty as politicians to meet the needs of people rather than to get people to meet the needs of those services. I therefore hope that ideas such as bussing and dispersal will be resisted.
	I hope that the Home Secretary will look favourably on the idea of opening up schools and further education institutions in the summer. Schools are about to break up, and such an arrangement would be helpful. I also go along with the suggestion, which I read about, made by the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Singh). We need an accelerated programme to recruit black and Asian British to the West Yorkshire police force.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Before the Home Secretary replies, I remind the House that there is another statement. I wish to call all hon. Members who are standing, but I will need the co-operation of the House to do so. I therefore require shorter questions and, of course, shorter answers.

David Blunkett: I shall attempt to be brief, Mr. Speaker.
	After all the years in which the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) and I were in local government and disagreed, it is nice for us to agree on something. It is also appropriate that we should do so today. I agree with his remarks on dispersal. Additionally, throughout the summer, we should and we will provide activities in colleges, theatres and leisure centres. Moreover, this year, the outward bound programme for 15 and 16-year-olds will be backed by £10 million. I am proud of that because I was the one who initiated it.

Ann Cryer: I endorse the comments of my right hon. Friend and of my two Bradford colleagues. However, I feel that we should perhaps be digging a little deeper and looking a little further, beyond the actions on Saturday of a minority of Bradfordians. The reason why young Asian men were on the streets of Bradford last Saturday could just be that they feel disaffected. They cannot appreciate why the good jobs, the expensive cars and the nice homes should all go to the whites. Perhaps we, too, should be asking why.
	May I suggest that the remedies will not be found in new and better community centres? The remedies that I am going to suggest—like my comments two years ago on forced marriages—will not go down well with the Asian leadership in Bradford or Keighley. However, I feel compelled to make them because of the severity of the situation.
	In Canada, which has otherwise very similar immigration laws to ours—

Mr. Speaker: Order. During a statement hon. Members must ask questions. The hon. Lady seems to be making a speech.

Ann Cryer: I am coming to it, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think the hon. Lady has given the Home Secretary enough to chew on.

Ann Cryer: I was about—

Mr. Speaker: Order. My ruling is that the Home Secretary will reply to the hon. Lady.

David Blunkett: My hon. Friend's reference to Canada must have been in connection with the Canadians' induction programme, which involves the acquisition of language and culture. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Asylum and Immigration, the Under-Secretary who has responsibility for immigration and nationality, my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle), and I will want to take ideas on how we can make being a British citizen and British national something to be proud of and ensure that induction into our community involves positive measures rather than simply the right to remain.

Michael Fabricant: The Home Secretary mentioned the Oldham and Burnley events that occurred before Bradford. To what extent has he explored the possibility that these are not simply copycat events, but co-ordinated events which form part of a conspiracy? Has he considered the use of the National Criminal Intelligence Service and the Secret Intelligence Service to investigate the activities of far-right and far-left groups who may be deliberately stirring up trouble in those three towns and others in the north in the weeks to come?

David Blunkett: My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Rooney) asked about NCIS and the use of the available intelligence in looking at the issues. I gave a comprehensive reply, but I repeat that we must act as sensitively and sensibly as we can. There is no evidence of conspiracy in relation to Saturday night's events and provocation, but there was enormous communication via mobile phones and other equipment to co-ordinate the action against the police.

Lorna Fitzsimons: Does my right hon. Friend accept that my constituents in Rochdale are vigilant because we are aware that what happened in Bradford, Oldham and Burnley could happen to us? Does he agree that we all have an individual responsibility to do all we can to ensure that violence such as that which we saw on Saturday does not continue and get a foothold in our community? However, does he agree that we cannot criminalise all young people, whether white or Asian? We must do all we can to empower them within their communities and make sure that they are involved in formal decision making to give them some ownership in the future.

David Blunkett: None of us would seek to criminalise young people; we want to engage with them positively. However, there must be messages from the family and the cultural communities. I am aware of the divide between elders and young people in some of the communities. The message in the peer group has to be clear; bringing about greater engagement and reducing alienation will not come from destroying the livelihoods of others on the streets.

John Wilkinson: May I commend the wise warning of the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Singh) and suggest that what he has said ought to be heeded by many hon. Members who represent big-city constituencies? I also applaud the early formation of the inter-departmental ministerial group by the Government and suggest that its work ought to be reinforced by Members of Parliament. Could we not have an ad hoc Select Committee on race relations and immigration that sits specifically to investigate the question of racial tension in our big cities and reports in advance of the formation of other departmental Select Committees? This is a matter of the gravest importance that concerns constituents in many cities and the country as a whole.

David Blunkett: I respond in the spirit in which the hon. Gentleman asked his question, and I welcome what he said. My right hon. and hon. Friends who are taking the matter forward will be happy to engage with Members of Parliament. When the Select Committee is formed, we will be happy to talk with the Chairman and others about how we make the approach inclusive. I am very happy to do so.

Alice Mahon: I support what my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friends the Members for Bradford, West (Mr. Singh) and for Bradford, North (Mr. Rooney) have said, and join them in condemning the mindless violence in Bradford. We must make it clear that this is not a game and that if it does not stop, someone will be killed. On a more positive note, will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating my local newspaper editor and his staff, Mr. Chaudhury Hussein—the chairman of the Calderdale youth forum—local authority officers and others who last night met hundreds of young Asians who, in a good-humoured and constructive meeting, pledged their commitment to work for a continued peaceful co-existence not just in Bradford but in Halifax? That is the way forward for all our communities; not petrol bombs, violence or the hatred and racism preached by the British National party.

David Blunkett: I happen to know that my hon. Friend has herself played a significant role and was one of the first to make contact to warn of the dangers ahead, and I commend her for it. I also commend wholeheartedly the initiative taken at local level in Halifax, and the role that the local news media can play and have played in this instance. There is a crucial role for local newspapers and radio, and for regional television, in ensuring that we get this right. Reporters must ask sensible questions, not stirring up hatred and division but fostering and spreading excellent initiatives such as the one to which she referred.

Mark Hendrick: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the activities of the National Front and the far right sparked some of the trouble that took place at the weekend, and that, although we would all condemn the violence, in some East Lancashire and West Yorkshire towns pockets of alienation are growing, despite all the wealth being generated in this country, and some youths are being tempted into joining drugs gangs, which were obviously active at the weekend? Does he agree that regeneration is the answer, so that youngsters do not fall prey to that temptation and can engage in legitimate activity?

David Blunkett: Regeneration, employment and positive hope for the future, so that people have an expectation that tomorrow will be better than today, are crucial, but there is no magic wand to be waved in relation to what is happening with drugs and the pressure on young people. It will take a great effort and great wisdom to be able to pull together the resources and the commitment necessary to overcome that scourge around us.

David Lammy: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. Many younger people in this country, including myself, who woke up after similar problems in the 1980s in places such as Brixton and Tottenham will be saddened because we know that the stigma lasts a long time and that it can never be right for people to destroy their own homes and those of their neighbours. Will he take note of the examples of success in some of our multi-ethnic communities, such as the Broadwater Farm estate in my constituency? I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) would want me to talk about success in Brixton in her constituency, too. There are examples of people working successfully together and turning things around. We need to create a bank of best practice in multi-ethnic constituencies.

David Blunkett: I agree entirely. That is precisely what my colleagues are seeking to do in pulling the group together: to learn from experience and share best practice, enabling us to configure similar social and demographic factors in other areas and consider what has worked best there.
	Make no mistake, though: the issues of regeneration, avoiding alienation and tackling some of the greatest social scourges of our time are not ones solely for areas where there are inter-racial or ethnic tensions. They also exist on the white housing estates such as those that I represent. We must balance the two if the message is to be clear that we care about all, regardless of race, colour or creed. If we do that, we will stop those who deliberately stir up hatred and use those factors to light the flames that we saw on Saturday in Bradford. That is a task for all of us.

Type 45 Destroyer

Geoff Hoon: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the procurement strategy for the type 45 destroyer.
	It is almost a year to the day since I announced to the House the decision to procure the first batch of three type 45 destroyers, as part of a planned class of up to 12 ships. The type 45s will be the largest and most powerful air defence destroyers ever ordered for the Royal Navy.
	Since that announcement, we have made good progress. The contract to complete the design and build of the first three ships was placed with BAE Systems on 20 December last year. Design work is also progressing well. An integrated design team—whose members come from the prime contractor, BAE Systems, and the two shipbuilding companies BAE Systems Marine and Vosper Thornycroft—has been established at Scotstoun for the last six months. In addition, a number of key subcontracts, such as those for the Rolls-Royce WR21 engine and much of the combat system, have now been placed. There have been a number of successful test firings of the Aster missile, the ship's main armament, which is being developed with France and Italy.
	However, progress towards the shipbuilding subcontracts has been more difficult. The procurement strategy for the type 45 was based on the allocation of shipbuilding work for the first three ships between the BAE Systems Marine yards at Barrow-in-Furness and on the Clyde, and Vosper Thornycroft. Thereafter, it was assumed that both companies would compete for the assembly of batches of the succeeding ships.
	At the end of last year, however, BAE Systems Marine put forward an unsolicited proposal for the construction of all 12 of the type 45 destroyers. We have been examining this proposal carefully to establish whether it offered better value for money for the taxpayer. We have also called on the services of RAND—a highly respected independent consultancy, experienced in this type of issue—to take a fresh look at possible procurement strategies for this programme in the context of the future warship programme as a whole.
	For the original procurement strategy to work, the shipbuilding companies need to work closely together during the development and manufacture of the first batch of ships already on order. Such co-operation has not been encouraged by the existence of the unsolicited proposal, nor by the prospect that the companies would have to compete against each other for the second batch of ships.
	We have been keen to resolve these problems, as has industry. Working with the companies, we have developed a revised strategy, which allocates work on the ships between the two shipbuilders for the whole class of type 45 destroyers. The first-of-class ship will be assembled and launched at Scotstoun. The focus of design support to the whole class will remain there, with continuing participation by both shipbuilders. The remaining ships will be assembled and launched at Barrow-in-Furness.
	Vosper Thornycroft at Portsmouth, and BAE Systems Marine—on the Clyde and at Barrow-in-Furness—will both build and outfit substantial sections of each ship. The yards will continue to build the same sections throughout the programme, to increase efficiency and produce better value for money for the taxpayer.
	Under the strategy, a commitment has now been made to six ships in a planned class of up to 12 ships. That commitment has therefore doubled the number on order. This larger volume of guaranteed work, and a stable foundation to the project, will allow industry to make long-term investment decisions.
	Subject to negotiations being completed satisfactorily, I propose to adopt this revised approach, through which we are confident that we can secure demonstrable value for money. We are seeking demanding efficiency improvements from industry. The initial findings of the RAND study support this new approach. It reflects the best features of the BAE Systems Marine bid in terms of learning from experience from one ship to the next, but it also preserves the possibility of competition for a number of subsequent defence programmes. The new strategy gives a welcome level of stability to our warship building industry. Above all, it offers the best prospect of achieving the in-service date for the type 45 destroyer, with deliveries to the Royal Navy starting in 2007. Any significant delay in that date would have significant operational and cost penalties.
	The new approach gives Vosper Thornycroft a defined and significant role in the type 45 programme. The company will be able to move its operation, as planned, into the Portsmouth naval base, and to invest in new shipbuilding facilities there. The new approach also provides a solid foundation from which the company can sustain its export business and enter competitions for future naval programmes. The company estimates that the substantial level of high-quality type 45 work should sustain a steady level of some 650 jobs well into the current decade.
	Type 45 work, together with the first three Astute class submarines and the order for two alternative landing ships (logistic) announced last year, should support BAE Systems Marine shipbuilding for the rest of the decade. The company's own estimates show that, once the total construction programme is up and running, work on type 45 vessels can sustain a steady level of some 1,200 jobs on the Clyde and about a further 900 jobs at Barrow- in-Furness. I understand that, in the light of this package of work, the company has no plans to close any of its yards.
	This revised procurement strategy for the type 45 destroyer is a further example of the benefits of smart acquisition, which involves an integrated team approach by the key industrial partners. The companies involved have welcomed this new strategy, and I commend it to the House.

Iain Duncan Smith: I start by thanking the Secretary of State for his courtesy in allowing me to see a copy of the statement.
	I unequivocally welcome today's announcement. Whatever else I have to say about it, the Royal Navy has been waiting a great deal of time—through two Governments—for these ships. I hope that the Government will also be able to guarantee that the in-service dates will be met and that they will stay strict and firm on the penalties they have proposed and will not allow the dates to slip any further.
	I congratulate Vosper Thornycroft and BAE Systems on finally receiving an order and wish them well as they set about building those important ships. On that note, however, will the Secretary of State clarify Vosper's role? Will he confirm that it will continue to be fully involved in all stages of design? The company would be grateful to know that, as would Conservative Members.
	Despite all the words about competition and smart procurement, nothing in the statement can disguise the fact that the announcement marks the end of competition policy in warship design and build as we have known it in the past few years. From what I have heard and read, it appears that there has been a U-turn on existing Government policy and the Secretary of State needs to confirm that and explain the reasons.
	It is important to cast the matter in context. The chief executive of the Defence Procurement Agency, Sir Robert Wormsley, said:
	"if we do not compete the follow-on production order there will be very little incentive for shipyards to improve their performance".
	I agree, and the Prime Minister went on to say:
	"competition remains the basis for our approach to procuring warships".
	The Secretary of State needs to explain carefully, therefore, why he has broken with that position and that pledge. How can the Government realistically expect competition for the final two batches when only BAE will assemble and launch all six of the ships as ordered? Surely the right hon. Gentleman should admit today that the arrangements will continue into the next two batches as well, regardless of cost, and that there is no real chance of any future competition.
	It is important also to remember that competition is not only about pitting one company against another but about deriving savings, not only for the Treasury but in this case for the Navy. For example, in the type 23 order, I understand that about 36 per cent. savings were made over the lifetime of the build programme. Will the right hon. Gentleman be able to indicate what savings he expects over the lifetime of this programme if he is not going to compete it?
	I also understand that Vosper Thornycroft is asking much the same question and wants the Secretary of State to clarify that the decision to move away from competition relates to the type 45 programme alone and is not a statement of the Government's intent to leave competition altogether. If the right hon. Gentleman fails to give us that reassurance, we can assume that the Government intend to move away completely from the procurement system that has operated until now.
	On the systems to be installed on the ships, what was most remarkable about the statement was that the Secretary of State gave little or no detail about how the ships will be fitted out for their real role. Will he confirm today that the type 45 as now planned and contracted for will in essence have little or no anti-submarine capability, particularly when the Lynx helicopter is not operational, as I understand that the ship will carry no torpedoes?
	Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the type 45 was originally due to carry the new Merlin helicopter, but that since the Government are not including a platform for the Merlin it will only be able to carry the Lynx, which will not have anything like the capability by 2007 that the Merlin would have had in the anti-submarine role?
	Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm also that he is not providing any close-in-range weapons system, such as Phallanx, and finally, that the type 45 will have no real anti-surface capability and no land-attack capability?
	The Secretary of State said in his statement that the type 45s would be the largest and most powerful air defence destroyers ever ordered for the Royal Navy. The real point is that they were intended for far more—they were meant to be ships that were capable not only of defending themselves but of defending other ships in a fleet operation. However, now it appears that unless those concerns are met the ships will have to put to sea defended by other ships.
	Although I welcome the Secretary of State's announcement that the ships will be ordered, too many questions have been left unanswered and too many concerns about future programmes remain to permit us to give an unequivocal welcome across the board.

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his opening observations. I shall do my best to deal with the important issues that he raises.
	As I said in my statement, design co-operation has gone extremely well. I see no reason why that co-operation should not continue with the same success—with both companies fully represented in the design team and with people working successfully together.
	It is not right to say that we have ended competition policy, but neither is it right to suggest that competition was the only means whereby successive Governments delivered vital defence equipment. The purpose of our approach is to ensure the best value for taxpayers' money. Competition may be one way of delivering best value, but it is not the only way. In any event, the decision will allow Vosper's and BAE Systems Marine to plan their forward investment programme and to develop appropriate facilities to ensure that both shipyards can compete not only for future Royal Navy orders but for orders from around the world. The key point for our shipbuilding industry is that our shipbuilding companies should be given a platform from which they can properly invest and that—crucially for them—allows them to compete for the many orders that exist throughout the world.
	The point about savings is that by allowing each company to build the same sections of each ship, on a progressive learning curve, not only will they build in the ensuing efficiency benefits but they will enable us to make savings as the work progresses. That was a major factor in deciding on our approach.
	I think that the hon. Gentleman rather misses the point about equipment for the type 45. At this stage, it is not necessarily the case that we shall design in all the equipment required by those ships. Indeed, one of the problems in the procurement of warships in the past was that the ships were so heavily over-designed that as their role changed to meet new realities, there was not enough flexibility to allow the incorporation of new ideas, new thinking and, crucially, new equipment. That is why we have not yet taken all the decisions about equipment and, more important, why there will be flexibility on the ships in order to be able to adjust to the changing strategic reality.

John Robertson: I thank my right hon. Friend for the announcement. I am pleased that yet again the Clyde has been given the opportunity to show that it can meet this country's present requirements and its future needs.
	Will my right hon. Friend tell us what has happened to the ALSL orders that were supposed to have come on line in June? What will happen to the present work force? How can they be kept in employment during the coming months? It is my understanding that the diagrams and so on for the ALSLs are not due to be received until next year so obviously there is a shortfall of work, especially at the Scotstoun yard in my constituency. At present, members of its work force are having to go down south.
	Will my right hon. Friend shed some light on what BAE Systems is saying? I and several colleagues have had great difficulty in getting any information from the company about what it has been doing. Will my right hon. Friend intercede on our behalf to find out exactly what BAE Systems plans to do? As a trade union official said to me, the silence coming from the company is deafening.

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his general welcome for the proposals. I shall deal as best I can with his concerns, especially those relating to the plans of BAE Systems, although I must point out to him and to the House that commercial judgments as to the organisation of particular companies are obviously matters for those companies.
	The proposal allows planning to take place over 10 years, to give a guaranteed level of work to BAE Systems and Vosper's. Both companies have welcomed that; it will allow them to go into the market and to compete successfully, I hope, for orders not only from the Royal Navy but from around the world. Notwithstanding that this is a very exciting programme of warship orders, it amounts to about 30 ships—a fraction of the total number of ships procured around the world each year—but it will provide both companies with some stability.
	As for the ALSLs, I gave no undertakings about the start of work on those ships. Last year, I said when the work could begin, and that statement was based on the best information then available from the two companies. I share my hon. Friend's disappointment that work has not yet started, but we continue to hope that the two companies involved will reconcile their different approaches to design and build, and that they can eliminate the difficulties that have developed and can proceed to cut steel in due course.

Paul Keetch: I, too, thank the Secretary of State for his courtesy in supplying me with details of his statement in advance. I warmly welcome the news that the Royal Navy will get six new warships—it certainly needs them. I congratulate him on embarking on this new concept in warship building. The concept has been tried in other parts of the world—most notably, in the United States—with some success, and we certainly welcome the approach.
	The Secretary of State mentioned the RAND recommendations; will he place at least a summary of them in the Library, so that we can know some of the conclusions? Does he agree that the viability of the British shipyards depends not only on their being able to compete now, but on their retaining the capability to compete in the future? Will he therefore be a bit more specific about the breakdown in the overall order to the individual companies and yards involved? That would certainly help the House to assess the order more fully. Is there enough work, for example, in Scotstoun on the Clyde to ensure that the 1,000 or so job losses suggested in the press today do not happen?
	The Secretary of State mentioned equipment, and I certainly agree that we need flexibility in our warship design. Will he therefore confirm whether the Sylver launcher, which will be fitted to the type 45s, will be capable of carrying a land-attack missile, such as Tomahawk, in addition to Aster? The vessels would be much more potent if they had that capability. Does he agree that the lessons of the type 82 programme, cancelled in the 1960s after CVA01 was cancelled, show that warship programmes are interdependent? Is it not the case that the order for the final 12 of those ships is dependent on the overall concept of retaining the two carriers, which lies at the heart of the Government's expeditionary proposals?

Geoff Hoon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support. I shall try to deal with as many of the points he raises as I can. If I omit to answer any of his questions, I will certainly write to him.
	As for the report, I said that we have now had the early, emerging findings from the study. A good deal of further work is still to be done, but I see no reason why we could not place a copy of the report in the Library, subject only to one exception: obviously, RAND has had available on a confidential basis some commercially sensitive details that I would not consider it appropriate to publish. With that exception, I shall seek to publish the study when it is finally completed.
	As for the breakdown between the companies, essentially, each company will be guaranteed a share of the sections. The hon. Gentleman will probably be aware that these days most ships of this size are constructed in sections—whether in a single yard or in a number of yards—and the basis of the allocation is to guarantee Vosper's work on particular sections of the type 45 design and for the Clyde to have the remainder, with the assembly taking place at Barrow-in-Furness, with the exception of the first of class.
	As for land-attack missiles, in answer to an earlier question I referred to the importance of preserving some flexibility. Vertically launched missiles could be launched from such platforms if that were judged at the time to be a relevant capability. That is precisely the kind of flexibility necessary to leave in place on those ships without trying to over-design their capabilities at this stage, as we are not entirely clear what the strategic landscape will be when they are in service.

George Galloway: Although the shipyard gate of Scotstoun is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson), the rest of the yard is in mine. I therefore join his welcome for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's announcement, which will guarantee a very healthy future in the medium and long term for shipbuilding on the Clyde. That is as it should be. First of class, world-class Clyde-built is still recognised as an important brand around the world.
	Although only one fifth of the Scottish National party's Members are here to stand up for Scotland, the statement further demonstrates the value to the Scottish economy of our being within the United Kingdom. If we were not, we would have no Royal Navy, and no orders would be being placed this afternoon.
	The one thing that is stopping tin hats being thrown in the air and the Secretary of State's name being chanted joyously on the Clyde is the fact that, as I understand it, the work force are being informed that this Friday, 1,000 people, rather than breaking up for the Glasgow fair as they had hoped, will be on the slippery slope towards redundancy, through no fault of their own. The ALSL drawings should have been there and the work should have been started. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State promised the House last year that the work would be started in the middle of this year.
	Will my right hon. Friend reconsider the four oilers proposal? I accept that he has no particular budget for it this year, but the company tells us that it would be cost-neutral for the Ministry. If it builds them now, it can pay for them later at no extra cost.
	Will my right hon. Friend also assure the House that he will work closely with the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive to try to ensure that the skills base on the Clyde is not scattered by the announcement of 1,000 redundancies and that, in particular, the jobs of the apprentices are saved? Without apprentices, we will have no shipbuilding industry in the future.

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the measured welcome that he has given to the proposals. Like him, I am delighted that they will secure the future of shipbuilding on the Clyde for the next 10 years. As I said in response to an earlier question, the key to the future of that yard does not lie with orders from the Ministry of Defence. Notwithstanding an order book of some 30 warships, we simply do not have enough work to keep all Britain's shipyards going over a long period.
	It is crucial that shipyards can compete effectively for the hundreds, if not thousands, of orders that are placed every year around the world. What the Ministry of Defence and the Government can do is ensure that Britain's shipyards have an appropriate platform and a programme of stability. My hon. Friend has worked assiduously on behalf of his constituents to ensure that they have a future in shipbuilding, and in the conversations that I have had with him over several months, we have recognised the importance of securing the platform and programme of stability that will allow the yard in his constituency and other yards in the United Kingdom to win work from Europe and the rest of the world. I am confident that the arrangement that I have announced will allow that to happen.
	On ALSLs, I gave the House the expectation, not a guarantee, that work could begin at about this time of the year. I am sorry that negotiations between the two companies have not allowed that to happen, but we continue to urge them to commence the cutting of steel as soon as possible.

David Burnside: I, too, thank the Secretary of State for today's statement, and I congratulate one part of the great shipbuilding world—the Clyde—on the securing of jobs for the whole of the United Kingdom.
	Will the Secretary of State outline what co-operation and collaboration will take place with the two great parts of the defence industry in Belfast—Harland and Wolff and Shorts—that might lead to joint ventures in relation to these orders or the two future aircraft carrier orders that he might foresee?

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his welcome of the statement. As part of the overall defence programme, there will certainly be opportunities for both companies in Northern Ireland to participate in the very considerable order book that is available. I cannot give him specific details at this stage, but I am confident that work is there for Northern Ireland. It is a question that we have addressed in the past. This occasion, however, is not a matter for Northern Ireland.

Mohammad Sarwar: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and warmly welcome the fresh work for Govan shipyard. I am pleased that the Government have awarded the lion's share of the new type 45 orders to the Clyde. It shows that they have confidence in the skilled work force at Govan and Scotstoun. Although the orders secure future shipbuilding on the Clyde, I am disappointed that the current gap in orders could not be filled. Workers in Govan and Scotstoun shipyards have suffered a great deal in the past two years and the threat of redundancy still hangs over their heads.
	I understand that the Secretary of State did not guarantee that ALSL work would start in Govan and Scotstoun shipyards in the summer, but that the Ministry of Defence had thought that it would. The delay means that the work force in Govan shipyard and other people in my constituency will suffer. Will my right hon. Friend use his good offices to put pressure on Swan Hunter to expedite the work so that the number of redundancies in the shipyard is reduced?

Geoff Hoon: I have already made it clear that that is the Government's intention.

Christopher Chope: Will the Secretary of State confirm that Vosper Thornycroft thinks that the arrangement is much better than the original procurement agreement? In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), he said that there would be co-operation on the design. Can he guarantee that Vosper Thornycroft will be involved in all design stages? Does he think that the Government will find themselves trying to get better value from best value, which is what happens in local government?

Geoff Hoon: I shall stick to my responsibilities for Defence, and not stray into local government matters. Although I have not had an opportunity to read Vosper Thornycroft's statement in detail, I am aware that it welcomes the decision. Obviously, it has been negotiating hard on an entirely commercial basis with BAE Systems on the allocation of work. If we did not take commercial decisions, the hon. Gentleman would be the first to criticise. Vosper's has been heavily engaged in design work and I see no reason why that should not continue. However, that will ultimately be a matter for Vosper's. The Government will make no decision either to prevent that or to require the company to participate if it judges it inappropriate. The co-operation of the two companies on the design work has been remarkably successful and I have every expectation that it will continue.

Jimmy Wray: We welcome the contract for the type 45 destroyer. I am glad that the Secretary of State took that decision, because the shipbuilding industry cannot be left on a tightrope. He has given us time to get the investment necessary for a long-term strategy. I do not speak as a parochialist; unemployment on the shores of the Thames is the same as unemployment on the shores of the Clyde. I thank him for the investment and hope that many more contracts will come our way.

Geoff Hoon: Again, I am grateful to my hon. Friend, especially for his appreciation of the opportunities that the announcement affords the Clyde, and of the need for it to respond to challenges from around the world. The platform for stability that we are providing will allow our shipyards to compete effectively with overseas shipyards to win more work for the United Kingdom.

John Wilkinson: The Secretary of State has confirmed that the first of class is unlikely to be in service with the fleet until 2007. How does he intend to maintain an effective area air defence capability for the Royal Navy in the interim? Was not the modernisation of Sea Dart cancelled because the new vessel was envisaged as being in service much earlier? Will the Secretary of State initiate a programme of Sea Dart enhancement for the type 42s? Why did he give no figures in his statement? Are not the Government supposed to believe in open government? Is the taxpayer not entitled to know what the overall cost of the programme is, and at least, what the unit cost per vessel will be?

Geoff Hoon: If the hon. Gentleman is dissatisfied with any of the answers that I am about to give, I will write to him with any greater detail that is allowed in accordance with commercial confidentiality.
	The programme of warship building and significant investment in Britain's armed forces was made necessary by years of cuts under the Conservative Government. If there is any gap in area defence, it is entirely the responsibility of the hon. Gentleman and the Government whom he generally supported to try to explain why, over a long period, the defence budget, instead of being increased as it is now, was cut year after year.

Angus Robertson: On behalf of the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru, the party of Wales, may I welcome the references in the statement to the 1,200 jobs that have been secured on the Clyde? How many jobs does the Secretary of State expect to be lost in the short term? Will he guarantee that there will be no compulsory redundancies on the Clyde?

Geoff Hoon: Obviously, jobs are a matter for the companies concerned. This announcement will not cost any jobs, and my responsibility on behalf of the Government is to make the announcement. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's welcome for the Government's defence plans. I hope that it indicates that from now on, instead of running down Britain's defence, the Scottish nationalists will support the Government's efforts.

Mike Hancock: On this occasion, I speak for both Portsmouth MPs when I say that we welcome the proposal, as do the majority of people in Portsmouth.
	The Secretary of State talked about flexibility in the defence of the ships and the platforms themselves. Will the Government consider whether, at this late stage in the design, Merlin is still a capability that ought to be put on the type 45? If the ship is to be with us for 20 years from 2007, the use of Merlin will be critical.
	If the Secretary of State believes that the future of shipbuilding in this country will be heavily dependent on what we can achieve in bringing contracts from abroad, will he open the doors of Portsmouth naval base as wide as possible to enable and encourage Vosper's to bring contracts to the city and begin shipbuilding there for the first time in 30 years?
	Does the Secretary of State agree that the predatory unsolicited bid by BAE Systems, and the way in which it was made, were in no way in keeping with the substantial retention of British shipbuilding that he was trying to achieve, or in the best interests of the defence of this country?

Geoff Hoon: Both Portsmouth MPs worked assiduously on behalf of their constituents and the naval dockyard. As I said, the announcement will give Vosper's the opportunity to move into the naval dockyard and derive significant commercial and practical advantages from being there. I do not think that it is necessary for us to go over that ground. This is a positive announcement for Vosper's, and I understand that the people of Portsmouth will welcome it. It is an opportunity for Vosper's to participate in a competitive shipbuilding programme in the future.

David Chidgey: I welcome the Secretary of State's announcement, particularly for the many of my constituents who work in the Vosper Thornycroft yard. He said that with this programme, Vosper's could now look forward to retaining 650 jobs. I remind him that in the year since he made his earlier announcement, the company's work force has gone down from 1,000 to 650, so this is very much a bottom line for it.
	Precisely what proportion of the work on the six type 45 destroyers will be awarded to Vosper's? I am interested to know exactly what sort of player it is. Looking to the future, does the Secretary of State believe that, on completion of the first six vessels in that class, Vosper Thornycroft will be equally well placed to compete for the following six, or will it be brushed away into a corner? May I remind him that Vosper Thornycroft has the best record of any shipbuilding company in this country in winning export orders?

Geoff Hoon: As I said, job numbers are a matter for the companies concerned, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not lose sight of a crucial aspect of the discussion. Only if our shipbuilding companies are capable of competing with the best in Europe and the world will they be able to attract new work to their yards. They will have to make a commercial judgment and decide the best level of employment to maintain a competitive position. It is no good the 30 warship orders available from the Ministry of Defence being spread lightly around Britain's shipyards, if those companies and those shipyards are not capable of competing for and winning orders beyond the United Kingdom. There is a commercial reality in what we are doing that cannot be ignored.
	I shall set out the precise breakdown in greater detail in due course, and shall write to the hon. Gentleman so that he can be satisfied with the arrangements—but Vosper Thornycroft is satisfied with the arrangements, and as it negotiated vigorously on a commercial basis, it is not for right hon. and hon. Members to second-guess its commercial judgment of what is in its best interests.

John Burnett: Appledore shipbuilders in my constituency competed for what it thought were MOD orders for two ALSLs. As it turned out, four were ordered, but no work has started on any of them. It would give the shipbuilding industry greater confidence if there was more transparency in those MOD orders. Will the Secretary of State confirm that once MOD orders are signed and contracts exchanged, full details of the orders will be put in the public domain?

Geoff Hoon: I have already made clear my determination that the process should be transparent. I am at the Dispatch Box giving details of the arrangements, to allow right hon. and hon. Members the opportunity to question those matters. As for details, subject to questions of commercial confidentiality, I see no reason why the hon. Gentleman cannot use the usual means of asking parliamentary questions or writing to me or to my ministerial colleagues to establish all the information that he requires.

Marconi

Annette Brooke: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 24, to debate an important matter that requires specific and urgent consideration, namely,
	the proposed closure of the Marconi plant in North Poole in my constituency.
	The operation has had a presence in my constituency since 1996; only four years ago, £12 million was spent on developing the present site, a high-tech research and development centre employing highly skilled software development engineers. Just one example of the innovative work done by Marconi at Poole is the 1471 callback system that it developed. Only a few weeks ago workers were assured that their jobs were secure, and investment continued in the site until recently.
	Last Thursday there was a bombshell for 570 workers: at 11 am, they received their first inkling of the proposed closure of the site. The individuals concerned were devastated, and it is predicted that there will be a £42 million impact on the local economy, and further job losses. Day by day new issues are being raised, and management has been severely criticised at a national level. The company has gone from being cash-rich to being in cash deficit, the chief executive designate has resigned, and share prices have tumbled. All round, this seems to have been a story of the pursuit of short-term profits at the expense of long-term development, whether by the City or by Marconi management. Today union leaders from across the country met Marconi, and they are now in the House, meeting Members of Parliament and reporting back on what happened.
	The decision in Poole was undoubtedly made in haste, against the background of a market that is predicted to turn round in a relatively short time. It is a severe blow not only for skilled manufacturing jobs in my constituency but for the United Kingdom. I therefore propose the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 to debate that important matter, which requires urgent consideration in view of the impact on my constituency and in the wider context of the United Kingdom manufacturing base.

Mr. Speaker: I have listened carefully to the hon. Lady, and I must give my decision without stating any reasons for it. I am afraid that I do not consider the matter she raised to be appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 24, and I cannot therefore submit the application to the House.

Point of Order

David Laws: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to draw your attention to a parliamentary answer that I received from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 4 July. In it, he cites a report by the National Audit Office, called "PFI and Value for Money", as evidence that the private finance initiative has given the public sector good value for money. That National Audit Office has confirmed that it never published that report, and is unaware of any such report. The Treasury has said that a typographical error occurred, but it has not made any substantive further statement.
	Given that the Treasury has clearly misled the House, would it be appropriate for it to arrange for an early statement today to clarify the matter? Have you received any requests from Treasury Ministers to make such a statement?

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order. I understand that there was an error in the answer to which he refers, and that the Chief Secretary is taking steps to correct it at the earliest opportunity.

Orders of the Day
	 — 
	Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Bill

Order for Second Reading read

Des Browne: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	The Bill gives effect to the proposals in our White Paper, "Combating Electoral Fraud in Northern Ireland", which was published in March. It provides the chief electoral officer for Northern Ireland with additional powers to address the problem of electoral fraud.
	The measures build on the excellent work of the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs, the recommendations of the Northern Ireland Forum committee on electoral malpractice, and an internal Northern Ireland Office review of electoral administration.
	Our policy across the United Kingdom is to encourage people to participate more fully in the political process. The turnout at elections has been historically higher in Northern Ireland than in the rest of the United Kingdom. That suggests that the electorate in Northern Ireland are more politically active and more politically conscious than elsewhere in the UK. However, there has been growing concern at the perceived extent of electoral malpractice in Northern Ireland.

John Taylor: The origins of the matter that we are considering lie in a report to the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs on electoral malpractice. It was agreed in March 1998. Why has it taken more than three years to introduce a Bill? It is possible that Assembly elections will take place soon in Northern Ireland.

Des Browne: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his contribution. I am acutely aware of the date of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee report, as I was a member of the Committee when it was published. He asked why it had taken so long for the legislation to appear. The answer is that the process of drawing up specific proposals has taken some time, as they have to be broadly acceptable, workable and fair. Arriving at a set of workable proposals involved extensive consultation with the political parties, especially in Northern Ireland, as well as the electoral office and others. Some new measures have already been taken in other legislation and by administrative means.
	There has been growing concern about the perceived level of electoral malpractice in Northern Ireland. The Government have a commitment to protecting the right to free and fair elections. Of course, electoral fraud is a crime. Electoral abuse is an affront to democracy and we are determined to combat it wherever it occurs. If there is a high level of abuse, or even if people only fear that that is the case, the democratic process will be under threat. We do not want voters in Northern Ireland to become disillusioned with politics because they fear that elections are unfair.

David Burnside: Will the Under-Secretary comment on the intimidation felt by the electorate of Fermanagh and South Tyrone at the general election? There was widespread intimidation by Sinn Fein at polling stations, against the democratic process. Is not that the most glaring example of abuse of democracy in Northern Ireland? Although legal action is now being taken on behalf of one of the defeated candidates, will the Minister comment on what happened in Fermanagh and South Tyrone?

Des Browne: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will understand if I do not comment specifically on any matters that may be before the court or subject to police investigations or electoral petitions. I can make it clear, however, that the Government deplore vote stealing and condemn utterly intimidation of any sort, including that which is linked to the electoral process. I am happy to make this call at the Dispatch Box: if anyone suffered such intimidation in the recent elections, they should report the incident to the police or the electoral office, so it can be dealt with with appropriate vigour.
	Although we do not want voters in Northern Ireland to become disillusioned with politics because they fear that elections are not fair, and although the perception of abuse must be dealt with, it is nevertheless the Government's view that draconian measures are not the answer. When taking measures to prevent electoral fraud, we must ensure that we do not put obstacles in the path of genuine voters. Only if we strike that balance will the measures that we take be broadly acceptable to the House and the electorate.
	My predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), dedicated much of his time at the Northern Ireland Office to considering the nature of electoral fraud in Northern Ireland and what could be done to prevent it. I pay tribute to him for his work. I am sure that the House will agree that his contribution on this issue and also the range of matters with which he dealt as Parliamentary Under–Secretary of State for Northern Ireland was significant. It is fair to say that we would not be discussing the Bill without his efforts to find workable solutions to the problems. He met representatives of most of the Northern Ireland parties at the end of last year to discuss the proposals in the Bill. At those meetings, there was broad agreement to the proposals, especially in respect of introducing a photographic electoral identity card.
	We have been criticised because the measures in the Bill have not been introduced before now—an issue raised by the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor). I stress that that has happened not because of a lack of commitment to the problem. The time before publication of the White Paper was used for extensive discussion with the parties and others to ensure that our solutions to the problem of electoral fraud in Northern Ireland were workable and broadly acceptable. I regret that it was not possible to introduce legislation before the elections on 7 June.
	Even if the changes made by the Bill had been introduced before the elections, however, the procedures could not have been implemented straight away, as they depend on material collected in the autumn canvass. We had to ensure that the electorate and the parties were well informed about the changes that are being made and that the people were not disfranchised as the result of any untimely haste. In discussion with the Northern Ireland parties, we were constantly reminded of the need to proceed in a careful and considered manner, most recently in the round of consultations in November.
	The measures proposed have been refined after detailed consultations with the political parties and the chief electoral officer. We have not been idle in implementing other changes that are not covered by the proposed legislation. For instance, new measures already in place are rolling registration and local processing of absent vote applications. The chief electoral officer has powers to examine the records of certain public bodies—for example, the Housing Executive, the district councils and the Rate Collection Agency. The existing IT in the electoral office is shortly to be replaced with updated equipment that will add to the efficiency of the office.
	We have given the chief electoral officer extra resources to provide additional staff in both his headquarters and his area electoral offices. We have also recently commissioned research to quantify with more certainty the scale of electoral fraud in Northern Ireland. The results of the research should be available in September. They will enable us to be better informed about the level of abuse and the form that it takes.
	As I have said, the Bill builds on the recommendations of the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs. I wish to emphasise the value and importance of those recommendations. As I have told the House, I was a member of the Committee at the relevant time, and I am proud of the work that was done.
	I am sure that the House will forgive me for taking a few moments to pay tribute to the work of the former Chairman of the Committee, Peter Brooke, both on the Committee and in making a significant contribution to the search for peace and prosperity in Northern Ireland. I am pleased to see so many of my former Committee colleagues in the Chamber. I look forward to them lending their particular knowledge and expertise to the debate.
	The Select Committee report was extremely thorough—

Harry Barnes: I am pleased to be involved in a debate that is led by my hon. Friend, who played an important role in the Select Committee. He has always been involved in Northern Ireland matters during his time in the House, first as a Parliamentary Private Secretary and now as a Minister, and he is welcome.
	Will my hon. Friend recognise the work of the committee of the Northern Ireland Forum, which produced a number of proposals that were later picked up by the Select Committee? The forum often produced valuable reports, often on a cross-party basis, which are not always recognised for their significance in the House.

Des Browne: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. I hope to live up to the billing that he has given me in the job that I have taken on. I paid particular attention to the forum's report in my introductory remarks. I am at pains to explain that the Bill is a result of a progression of thought. A number of bodies have contributed to that progression, and I hope that the Bill will be all the more welcome to the House because it is the result of a process in which many Members have played a significant part. I have no hesitation in paying tribute to the forum's work in that important process.
	The Select Committee report was extremely thorough and it made an important contribution to the thinking behind the Bill, as did the work of other bodies. I do not detract from anything that we said in our report on electoral abuse. However, it should not be a criticism of the Bill, or of myself, that it does not implement all of the Committee's recommendations. As I have said, the Bill had to strike the right balance between limiting the opportunity for abuse and putting obstacles in the path of genuine voters.
	On closer examination of the Select Committee's report, not all of the measures recommended by it were feasible, nor would they have been effective in the way proposed. For example, the use of the national insurance number as a personal identifier had certain demerits. We considered carefully the idea of making the national insurance number an identifier, as well as the date of birth and signature, as proposed in the Bill. We are not convinced that the national insurance number would add sufficient value to justify its addition as an identifier. Arguably, it would create new difficulties. For a start, most people do not know their national insurance number—certainly, many people do not know it. Would a presiding officer be justified in refusing someone a ballot paper if they could not recall theirs? It is possible to have more than one national insurance number. One can have a temporary national insurance number. There is evidence that people who may not legitimately have a national insurance number have more than one.

Peter Robinson: The hon. Gentleman will know from his experience on the Select Committee that that was not the reason why the national insurance number was sought as an identifier—it was so that when registration took place, the chief electoral officer would be able to identify multiple registration.

Des Browne: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding me of that. I will in a few moments come to the other problems with using the national insurance number as an identifer and give our view of how multiple registration should be dealt with.
	One of the other reasons why we rejected the idea of using the national insurance number as an identifier was the legal constraints of data protection that would have to be overcome. That would require additional legislation. In any event, the national insurance number was never intended to be an identifier for anything other than fiscal or employment purposes.
	It is possible to think of any number of personal identifiers: the number of personal identifiers that one could demand of people may be unlimited. In striking the appropriate balance, we think that it is appropriate to introduce into the system only the personal identifiers that are necessary to achieve the checks to ensure that fraud does not take place. We should not include in the electoral process all the identifiers that are available.
	The Select Committee recognised that a smart card, a universally issued electronically read card, for electoral purposes would probably be
	"the most effective option for combating electoral malpractice in Northern Ireland".
	As we said in the White Paper, our ultimate aim is for every voter to be issued with an electoral smart card bearing a unique identifier, but that is an aspiration. The technology available at the moment, especially with regard to biometrics, is still too young. We would be foolish to rush into a radical new system before we could be confident of the practicalities, but we will consider further when to initiate such a secure electoral identity scheme. Such a scheme would not be introduced without further consultation with all interested parties.

Lembit �pik: That is a reasonable position to take, but does the Minister nevertheless agree that Northern Ireland would be a good place to pilot such a scheme, even if over time we need to make at least one update to the specific technology in use in Northern Ireland?

Des Browne: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Governments of both parties have been prepared to do in Northern Ireland what has not been done in Great Britain, so there is no reluctance to introduce a separate system for Northern Ireland. However, there is reluctance to experiment with such an important part of the electoral system and to introduce impractical measures. I do not believe that the Government should test technology on the electoral system. We certainly do not intend to do that. When we are satisfied that the technology is robust, secure and works properly, that will be the time to consider the introduction of the more advanced biometrically based smart card. That is the aspiration, but we will do it in the way in which we have been urged to do all things in this areacarefully and at the appropriate pace, taking not only the political parties of Northern Ireland, but, I hope, the electorate in Northern Ireland with us.
	Many of the Select Committee's other recommendations have already been implemented in the measures that I outlined earlierfor example, rolling registration, which came into effect in Northern Ireland, as in the rest of the UK, by means of the Representation of the People Act 2000. The electoral office has been provided with funding for additional staff. The information technology system will be replaced over the next few years, and will be capable of responding to the new measures that we are introducing.
	Members are aware that voting procedures in Northern Ireland are different from those in the rest of the UK. They reflect the very different circumstances surrounding elections in Northern Ireland. Most significantly, in Northern Ireland there is a legal requirement for a voter to produce one of a number of valid, specified documents at a polling station before being issued with a ballot paper. A person must also be resident in Northern Ireland for three months before qualifying for entry on the electoral register there. Absent voting rules in Northern Ireland are stricter than those in Great Britain, because there is no automatic right to an absent vote.
	All those measures are in place because they are necessary. I am sure that all Members regret the circumstances that make them so, but the issues surrounding elections in Northern Ireland demand them. We want election day to be as normal as possible for the voters in Northern Ireland. We do need different measures, but they must be proportionate if we are to avoid putting barriers in the way of the electorate.

Martin Smyth: I understand the point that the Minister has been trying to make, but may I ask two questions? First, are we not perhaps living in cloud cuckoo land in assuming that there are no problems in Great Britain? It is increasingly obvious that there is electoral fraud there. Secondly, has the Minister considered amending the regulations concerning, for example, driving licences? If a person presents a plastic card that identifies him, giving his date of birth and so on, it is not accepted unless there is also a paper document. There is a growing tendency for people to carry only the plastic documents in their wallets. Voters have been turned away unnecessarily in Northern Ireland because of a rather strict interpretation of the law by our officials. Should that not be changed?

Des Browne: I know how much attention the hon. Gentleman pays to this important issue, and I always listen to what he says with respect and care. However, he will not draw me into commenting on matters that are outside my area of responsibility. It has taken me enough time to get to grips with my present responsibility; I do not want to take on responsibility for the rest of the UK's electoral system as well. I therefore shall not comment on whether there is evidence that a degree of personation or fraud is taking place in the rest of the UK; I leave that responsibility to others.
	As for the hon. Gentleman's second point, by law the driving licence is the whole document. Because I mislaid my old green licence, I now have a new licence with my photograph on it. When I have to hire a motor vehicle, for instance, I know that I must produce both the part bearing my personal identity and photograph, and the part containing the other information. There is, I understand, evidence to suggest that not all prospective voters in Northern Ireland know about this, and that people have been turned away after failing to produce the appropriate identifiersbut there is a series of other identifiers that they could produce. It is hoped that, in the climate that the Bill will create, the emphasis will be on the photographic aspect of the identification. It may then be appropriate for us to turn our attention to the part of the document that bears the photograph, as opposed to the other information. I suspect, however, that if the Bill is passed there will be a transitional period leading up to photographic identification, which will have to be managed carefully in any event.
	I respect the hon. Gentleman's knowledge and his seniority in the House, but I do not think it would be appropriate for the Government to consider any more changes than are absolutely necessary at this stage. No doubt we shall have an opportunity to discuss these matters in detail in Committee.

Roy Beggs: My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) has raised an issue that causes great annoyance at every polling station across Northern Ireland. Surely it is an absolute nonsense that someone who presents paper documentation without a visual identifier is granted permission to vote, whereas someone who presents a part of his driving licence with a photograph clearly identifying him is denied such permission.
	Now is the time to take action on the issue. With all due respect, and although I welcome the Minister to his post, I said in last week's business questions that perhaps the Secretary of State should have attended this debate or the debate should have been deferred for a week. If the Secretary of State were here, perhaps he would have been conciliatory on the issue. I repeat the appeal to the Minister to take on board the point and endeavour to make the relevant changes.

Des Browne: Given that the hon. Gentleman and I were members of the Northern Ireland Affairs CommitteeI believe that he continued to be a member of that Committee throughout the previous Parliamentand that we established a good working relationship and friendship there, I shall not take personally his comments on the absence of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I am sure that the House will understand that my right hon. Friend is regrettably unable to attend the debate because of the fluid situation in Northern Ireland. I shall simply say that the political process in Northern Ireland is an important matter.
	As it is important to ensure that the electoral system in Northern Ireland is beyond reproach, we judged that it was right to keep the parliamentary slot allotted to the Bill and to consider it today. I am sorry for the hon. Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs) if he has to put up with me rather than the Secretary of State. However, I shall endeavour to be a little more conciliatory.
	The hon. Gentleman's experience seems to reinforce the point made by the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth). There is a focus on the photograph as an identifier because of the significant move from identifiers, albeit not exclusively photographic ones, that the current Government have inheritedalthough that move was supported on both sides of the House. That may give us an opportunity to consider the importance of photographs in the context of this legislation.
	As I said, it would not be right to impose unreasonable burdens on the majority of the electorate in Northern Ireland who merely want to exercise their franchise as entitled. The action that we take must be carefully thought through, and we believe that the Bill strikes the correct balance. It provides for a photographic electoral identity card to be issued free of charge to those who are entitled to vote but might not otherwise have satisfactory proof of identity.
	It is proposed in due course to replace all the non-photographic identification on the list of specified documents. Thereafter, the electoral identity card, the passport and the driving licence will be the only identification that are acceptable at polling stations. The Bill requires that a canvass form and an application for voter registration be signed by and include the date of birth of each of those to whom the form or application relates. In certain circumstances, it also gives the presiding officer at a polling station the power to ask the date of birth of an elector applying for a ballot paper.
	It has always been intended that the measures will be applied to all elections in Northern Ireland. The Bill extends all the measures to parliamentary elections, although subordinate legislation will be needed to amend the local elections rules and the franchise for European elections.
	Before I come to the details of the clauses, I should touch on some important issues that were covered in the reports to which I referred and which we discussed in our subsequent consultations. These are the questions of multiple registration, absent voting and exclusion zones around polling stations.
	The Select Committee expressed concern about the level of multiple registration in some parts of Northern Ireland. Some people have a legitimate right to register in more than one place and should, indeed must, be allowed to continue to do so. I am thinking particularly of students and people who have to work away from home. I am registered to vote not only in the city of Westminster, but in my constituency. The Select Committee shared that analysis, recommending that those who were registered more than once should be required to indicate that that was the case and to list all their addresses.
	We share the objective of identifying those who are registered more than once, but propose to achieve that in a slightly different way. The collection of additional identifiersthe signature and date of birthplus enhanced IT capability in the electoral office will mean that the chief electoral officer will be able to identify more effectively where people are registered to vote at more than one address. He will thus be able to ensure that, for parliamentary elections, only one poll card is issued to such an individual and ensure that the privilege of multiple registration is not abused.
	On absent voting, the White Paper originally proposed that the date of birth and signature should be required on the application. On reflection, we have decided that a requirement for the signature alone should be sufficient. Throughout the process of developing the proposals, we have been mindful that we must introduce the minimum changes necessary to guarantee effectiveness. That is because any checksno matter how mundane or minor they may appearpresent a potential barrier to the voter. Our guiding principle has been not to set up additional barriers unless we are completely confident that they represent added value.
	Of the two identifiers, we believe that the signature is more reliable and easy to use. We appreciate that some people will be unwilling to give their date of birth, but we will already be requiring them to do soif the House approves these measuresto get on to the electoral register. There is little benefit in requiring them to do so again to receive an absent vote. The signature on the absent vote application will provide a quick and easy visual check for electoral staff. If they have concerns about the authenticity of the application, they may still draw on the date of birth that they have from the register in pursuing their inquiries.
	The issue of so-called exclusion zones around polling stations is an important and complex one. We fully acknowledge the seriousness of the issue of intimidation. The Select Committee did so too, and rightly. Like the Government, the Select Committee decided that nevertheless the solution to intimidation, or perceived intimidation, was not an exclusion zone around the polling station. Campaigning around the polling station is a recognised political activity throughout the UK. It is perfectly legitimate, where it is carried out in a fair and proper manner.
	We see no reason to end that legitimate practice in Northern Ireland by imposing exclusion zones. We need to be satisfied that we have taken all the necessary steps to ensure that activity around the polling station is not carried out in such a way as to intimidate people into staying away, or coerce them into voting for a particular party. We have examined the existing law carefully and believe that it is sufficient to ensure that, as it stands.
	We need to ensure that presiding officers know the law and know their duties and responsibilities and, most importantly, have the confidence to take action where it is necessary, including involving the police. We are committed to ensuring that the chief electoral officer has the necessary resources to achieve that, and we know that he has frequent discussions with the police about the conduct of election day.
	As I said earlier, we considered seriously the proposal for an exclusion zone on the lines of the procedures which operate, for example, in the Republic of Ireland. We took advice, including from the police. Their view was that that had the potential to create greater difficulties; it would cause disruption for households inside the zone; it would merely displace the potential confrontation point to outside the polling station; and it would, in fact, create several different points of possible conflict which would all have to be policed. The fact is that no one has said to us that there is a universal problem at polling stations throughout Northern Ireland, but if we went down that route, we would need an exclusion zone around every polling station. Even if we thought an exclusion zone was an effective measure, there clearly would be no reason to impose one in every instance. As I have said, we want election days to be as normal as possible for the voters in Northern Ireland.
	Clause 1 enables the chief electoral officer for Northern Ireland to collect additional identifying information from registered voters. Electors and those applying for registration will be required to state their date of birth and sign the form for the annual canvass, as well as to state their names and addresses. That information will not appear on the public version of the electoral register, but will be used at the electoral office and at polling stations to make checks against the names of electors when they apply for a postal vote or to vote by proxy, or attend at a polling station to obtain a ballot paper. The chief electoral officer may use his discretion to dispense with the requirement for a voter to supply a signature in certain circumstances, such as physical incapacity or illiteracy.
	Clause 2 amends the parliamentary elections rules in relation to Northern Ireland. The changes empower a presiding officer or clerk at a polling station to ask a third statutory question: What is your date of birth?. If the voter does not answer to the satisfaction of the presiding officer, he can refuse to issue a ballot paper. If the voter does answer to the satisfaction of the presiding officer, the ballot paper must be presented unless a candidate or his election or polling agent accuses the voter of personation.
	Clause 3 amends provisions that have effect only in Northern Ireland and relate to absent voting. Applications to vote by post or proxy must be signed and the signature on the application must correspond with the signature provided to the chief electoral officer on registration. The chief electoral officer may refuse to grant an absent vote application if he is not satisfied that the signature on the application corresponds with the signature held on his records. Refusal of an absent vote is not taken lightly. The chief electoral officer may use his discretion, but refusal without good cause would leave his decision subject to judicial review.
	Clause 4 enables a person to apply to be issued with an electoral identity card, in accordance with any requirements prescribed by regulations. The chief electoral officer has the function of determining such an application, and if he is satisfied that the information given by an applicant is correct, he is required to issue an electoral identity card free of charge.
	The electoral identity card must show the elector's full name and date of birth, his photograph and the card's expiry date. The chief electoral officer can decide, in accordance with any regulations, that the card should include other information in a particular form. The card will be valid for 10 years and will be added to the list of specified documents that voters may use for the purposes of identification at polling stations in Northern Ireland.
	Clause 5 introduces a requirement for voters with disabilities to produce a specified document, in the same way as other voters. That requirement had been inadvertently omitted. Since 1985, it has been a requirement that voters in Northern Ireland should produce evidence of identity in the form of a prescribed document.
	Before the Representation of the People Act 2000 came into force, the law required that the presiding officer should not grant a blind voter's application to vote with the assistance of another person unless the voter had produced a prescribed document to identify himself. That was inadvertently repealed by a new rule in the 2000 Act, which extended the right to vote with the assistance of a companion to voters with disabilities such as physical incapacity and illiteracy.
	The unforeseen consequence of the new rule was that it removed the requirement for blind and disabled voters in Northern Ireland who were voting with the assistance of a companion to produce a prescribed document. Clause 5 repairs the provision for blind voters and extends the requirement to produce a prescribed document to all those entitled by the 2000 Act to vote with the assistance of a companion. A voter with disabilities who attends at a polling station with a companion to assist him may satisfy the requirement to produce a specified document, even if in fact the documents are produced by, and the ballot paper delivered to, the companion rather than the voter himself.
	Clause 6 makes it an offence for a person to sign either a canvass form or an application for registration if the person signing is not the person to whom the form or application relates. A person found guilty of either offence is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or a fine, or both.
	Clause 7 provides that clauses 1 to 4 and 6 come into force on days to be specified by the Secretary of State, who may specify different commencement dates for different provisions. Clauses 5 and 7 will come into force on Royal Assent.
	The Bill counters electoral abuse directly and at every stage of the electoral process: registration, absent voting and polling. We want to ensure that any loopholes that have been exploited in the past are removed. At the same time, we will not prevent genuine voters from making their voices heard. All our proposals have been examined with that in mind. We intend to implement the measures as soon as is practicable, but we will take all necessary steps to ensure that no one is disenfranchised because of them. Calls for the measures have come from within Northern Ireland itself and from parties across the political spectrum.
	People who commit electoral fraud are attacking the fundamental principles of democracy. Governments have a duty to protect the right to free and fair elections. The Bill sends a clear signal that electoral fraud is a crime and that we are determined to combat it. I commend the Bill to the House.

John Taylor: We are grateful to the Minister for setting out the background and the main provisions of this short Bill, and I congratulate him on his debut at the Dispatch Box.
	The Bill has the broad support of the Opposition, and we have no intention of dividing the House this evening. It is intriguing that the Government should have chosen to debate electoral fraud in a part of the United Kingdom on the day that the Conservative party is engaged in its first leadership election ballot. I am sure that that is entirely coincidental.

Des Browne: The hon. Gentleman should not read too much into that coincidence, as the parliamentary Labour party is also voting for its chairman today.

John Taylor: There is an even-handedness and implicit fairness about that that may speed us on our way.
	I assure the House that my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Sir M. Spicer) has, in his capacity as our chief electoral officer, put in place strict measures to prevent multiple registration or any form of personation. There have been no reports so far of people voting early and voting often.
	Regrettably, that has not always been the case in Northern Ireland. Ever since the franchise was extended in the 19th and early 20th centuries, electoral fraud, the vote early, vote often tradition, and problems of personation have been endemic to political life.
	It will not surprise the House that I believe that parties representing the republican tradition have been more adept than others at exploiting the system for their electoral advantage. That is certainly true over recent years, although I am told that, in the past, it was not unknown for Unionists to engage in that practice also. Just before the 1987 general election, the distinguished journalist David McKittrick wrote a brilliant article on electoral malpractice, in which he stated:
	Complicity in these activities went right to the top. One woman campaigner volunteer recalls a former Unionist Prime Minister shaking her by the hand and urging her to 'vote early and vote often'.
	The same article describes personation as
	simply the stuff of normal politics.
	It cites stories of people voting 10, 20 and 30 times, and quotes Lord Fitt, who recalled polling stations at which the turnout bafflingly exceeded 100 per cent. A polling station without personation agents was known as an open box, and Lord Fitt is quoted in the article as saying that every attempt was made to riddle the box by pushing in as many personators as possible.
	According to McKittrick,
	houses and halls were set aside as 'dressing stations' where personators would sometimes go for a change of clothes.
	It was only when Sinn Fein began contesting elections again in the 1980s that the old convention of doing your own side was cast aside, and vote stealing from the other side began to take place.
	As a result of all that, elections in Northern Ireland, and in particular the identification of voters at polling stations, are already more tightly controlled than in the rest of the United Kingdom. Most recently, the previous Conservative Government passed the Elections (Northern Ireland) Act 1985, which made it compulsory for electors to present specified identity documents before they were given the ballot paper. Despite that, however, I agree with the Government that the Act has failed to stamp out personation and electoral fraud in Northern Ireland. In particular, stories abound about the ease with which some of the documents specified in the Act can be forged, especially those that do not carry a photograph, such as a medical card or a book for the payment of allowances, benefits or pensions.
	The current extent of electoral fraud is, of course, difficult to quantify with precise accuracy. By and large, elections pass off without incident. I have no doubt that in the majority of cases the results reflect the wishes of the electorate. I also express my appreciation for the work carried out by the chief electoral officer, his staff and all those involved in the running of elections in Northern Ireland, who do their jobs, often in difficult circumstances.
	That said, however, there is enough anecdotal evidence to make it clear that more needs to be done. As the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee concluded in its 1998 report,
	there is sufficient evidence of organised voting theft to indicate that the problem of electoral malpractice in Northern Ireland is serious.
	Indeed, rather than declining, the evidence appears to suggest that the problem has been on the increase in recent years. The result of this year's election in Fermanagh and South Tyrone has already been mentioned. Sinn Fein won by only 59 votes and the result is being challenged in the election court in Belfast because of allegations that a polling station was allowed to stay open for some time after the 10 pm close. Fermanagh and South Tyrone is not, of course, without form in the history of electoral malpractice. Anyone conversant with the result in 1955 or the allegations surrounding the by-elections of 1981 will be able to testify to that. We await the court's judgment with interest.
	Nor is the problem confined to Westminster electionsat local government and Assembly elections the existence of multi-member constituencies and the single transferable vote increases the potential for fraud. As the then chief electoral officer, Mr. Bradley, in his report for 199899, put it:
	The local elections are more susceptible to electoral abuse. A small number of voters can have a significant impact on the election of individual councillors and hence, in the case of marginal councils in determining the overall control of the council.
	Electoral fraud has been the subject of a number of studies and debates in recent years at Westminster and in the Northern Ireland Forum and, recently, in the Northern Ireland Assembly. I, too, pay tribute to the work of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee under the chairmanship of my noble Friend, the former Member for the Cities of London and Westminster, Peter Brooke. Its report in 1998 highlighted a number of areas of concern and formed the backdrop to the Government's White Paper Combating Electoral Fraud in Northern Ireland, which was the basis for the Bill.
	That Select Committee drew attention to problems in the following areas: registration, absent voting, political presence at polling stations, and voter identification. Some of the examples that it mentions in its report are staggering.
	On the accuracy of the register in Belfast, West the Select Committee noted evidence provided by the Social Democratic and Labour party of some 18,000 names that appeared more than once on the register for the area, compared with 6,000 on a London register for an area with a large Irish community. It is no wonder that the Select Committee concluded:
	the evidence indicates that there may be a serious level of multiple registration, at least in some parts of Northern Ireland.
	The Government's review Administering Elections in Northern Ireland concluded:
	there is a level of false registration which is carried out with the express intention of abusing the system.
	On the abuse of absent voting, we learn that before the 1997 general election the chief electoral officer received 10,000 applications only hours before the deadline. As the Select Committee noted:
	A large proportion of these were from one political party.
	There are no prizes for guessing which one it might have been. An investigation by the chief electoral officer into applications for absent voting uncovered one case in which a doctor had attested that an applicant was unable to leave his home, but another application by the same person for a different election included the statement that the person was a long-distance lorry driver.
	As the Select Committee noted, the chief electoral officer was
	satisfied beyond any shadow of a doubt that the problem was extensive.
	The Select Committee concluded:
	Absent voting provides a serious threat to the integrity of the electoral system in Northern Ireland.
	The Government's review stated that the chief electoral officer believed that up to half of all absent vote applications for the 1997 local government elections were fraudulent.
	On the problems of voter identification at polling stations, the Select Committee also drew attention to the weakness of the current system, concluding that
	the present system of relying on party agents to challenge in cases of personation is unrealistic and provides inadequate protection.
	Clearly there is a need for action, and we are justified in criticising the Government for their delay in putting legislation before the House. Why did it take three years between the publication of the Select Committee report and the White Paper setting out the Government's own proposals to combat electoral fraud? As the Select Committee, in its first special report of 2000-01, put it:
	When we reported in March 1998, less than a year after the General Election, we had a reasonable expectation that rather more progress might have been made before the next General Election in tackling the serious problem of electoral malpractice than appears likely to be the case.
	That is rather more diplomatic than the language that I would use to describe the Government's delay in coming up with these proposals. The argument that they lacked parliamentary time is simply unsustainable given that they only got round to publishing their White Paper in March, and given that they regularly make time in the House for much less serious measures than the one before us today.
	As a result of the Government's delay, legislation was not in place for the recent general election; nor will it be in place should the Government go down the road of calling fresh Assembly elections if the current impasse continues. That is unacceptable.
	Turning briefly to the Bill itself, I do not intend to follow the Minister in describing each of the proposed legislative changes in detail. As far as the changes go, they make practical common sense to the Opposition. We hope that adding the date of birth and a signature, allowing the presiding officer at a polling station to ask for the date of birth of an elector applying for a ballot paper and the introduction of an electoral identity card will have the desired effect in combating what is clearly a problem.
	We particularly welcome the move towards phasing out the non-photographic forms of identification at polling stations and the new photographic electoral identity card. We urge the Government to proceed with that as quickly as possible, given that it is estimated that it could take up to 18 months to complete the process after legislation is passed.
	Looking to the longer term, the White Paper Combating Electoral Fraud in Northern Ireland identifies the potential for new technology to combat electoral fraud to ensure that in Northern Ireland we have a comprehensive and secure electoral identity system. The White Paper suggests that the ultimate aim should be for every voter to be issued with an electoral smart card bearing a unique identifier. That would prevent anyone from registering twice without the knowledge of the chief electoral officer, and would make it almost impossible for anyone to vote twice.
	That surely must be the way forward in Northern Ireland, so it was disappointing to read in the White Paper that, having set out the advantages of such a scheme, the Government consider them to be only aspirations for the future. Surely the technology exists to begin working on a secure electoral identity scheme now. That is what the Government should be working towards, and with rather more urgency than they have shown with the measure before us today.

Harry Barnes: It is good when work with which one has been personally associated eventually makes it through the legislative process. That has not happened often in my experience, so I am glad that the Bill has been introduced.
	I gave evidence to the committee of the Northern Ireland Forum which, in 1997, published the valuable report on electoral malpractice that was referred to earlier. Like my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and other Members in the Chamber this evening, I served on the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs which, in March 1998, issued a report on electoral malpractice in Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) was involved in the production of both reports. The work of those committees seems to have pushed the Northern Ireland Office into action, because it started work on its own report shortly after the Select Committee began its investigations. The NIO report was published in October 1998.
	The hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) cited the Select Committee report published in January 2001 in which concerns were expressed that legislation had not been introduced sooner. Peter Brooke chaired the Select Committee admirably. He had had experience of Northern Ireland as its Secretary of State and enabled us to find a form of words that helped us along the road to the peace process. As one would have expected, his work on the Select Committee always drew on his experience.
	The Bill contains a manifest defect, which I shall deal with later. I shall of course support the Bill on Second Reading, but I shall look for opportunities to table amendments at a later stage, especially in relation to the defect that I shall mention.
	Although it has been pointed out that the Select Committee report contains many references to problems of electoral fraud in Northern Ireland, the hard quantifiable detail that people might require to demonstrate those problems is not given in the report or elsewhere. It is important to set up investigations such as the one currently under way into marked electoral registers. That investigation will find out which voters in recent elections are not recorded as voting in past elections, and will check whether they really did vote recently or whether their vote had been appropriated by a political party.
	As the hon. Member for Solihull noted, there is sufficient evidence in the Select Committee report to support our justified concerns and fears about the operation of elections in Northern Ireland. That is partly because of the strong sectarian attitudes in certain parts of Northern Ireland society. It is felt that the ends justify the means, so the niceties of the electoral game and the commitment of democrats to that game can readily and easily be abused by people for their own ends.
	There is a limited commitment to the democratic process in certain areas of party political activity. If Sinn Fein had that commitment, it would certainly take action on issues such as decommissioning, but it does not act according to those principles. The hope is that the more it is involved in the democratic process, the more the process will have an influence on its operations, values and attitudes. However, that is certainly not happening at the moment, and the major electoral fraud that takes place in Northern Ireland is clearly associated with that party.
	We are having to make key decisions on the Bill at a time when a clear divide exists in Northern Ireland. Assembly elections, which may be upon us soon, need to take place in the context of our having such legislation tightly in place because, in the nationalist camp, it matters tremendously whether it is Sinn Fein or the Social Democratic and Labour party that achieves the largest number of votes and seats and which of them can rightly claim to speak on behalf of the nationalist community. The same can be said of the Democratic Unionist party and the Ulster Unionist party in relation to that community.
	In the case of the DUP, some of us are very worried that the no vote position will hold sway. In the case of the nationalists, if Sinn Feina party which had played with the peace process and arranged for people to vote in association with it but clearly did not have the fully fledged commitment to it that should existtook over, it would be in the driving seat of the nationalist position. Several of us would not like those results; we would like the majorities in favour of the agreement to hold sway politically, but that must happen in the fairest way possible and in accordance with electoral practices.
	The methods of vote-stealing are clearly listed in the reports that I have mentioned. The addresses of demolished buildings have been used, although we have heard that action has been taken to ensure that the information is available to returning officers to allow them to determine whether addresses are legitimate. There have been over-subscribed numbers in households. In those cases, a suspiciously unlikely number of people have been registered as living at a house of a certain size.
	The high level of multiple registration is also a problem. Rolling registration, which has now been established, reduces the need for multiple registration. Is multiple registration necessary if people can move from one part of the Province to another and relatively quickly establish their new addresses as those from which they will vote? We should be able to operate systems, especially with rolling registration, that get rid of multiple registration, or we should take action to reduce its operation considerably, and I believe that that applies to the whole United Kingdom.
	Forged and fraudulently used medical cards, allowance books and so on are another problem. The Select Committee was provided with evidence to show that the Royal Ulster Constabulary had discovered factories that manufactured forged documents, although there had been an attempt to burn those documents. The suggestion that electoral cards, with photographs on them, should be used is partly a response to that problem. That is one avenue that could be used.
	The rush of last-minute voter applications has been mentioned, and there has also been abuse of marked registers. The evidence from the electoral returning officer showed that much more common than a vote cast in the name of someone who had died and should no longer appear on the register was a vote castclearly by someone who had looked very closely at the marked registerin the name of someone who did not normally exercise their franchise rights.
	Intimidation, such as following the postman when postal votes are used, and intimidation involving the electorate more generally are serious matters which might not be dealt with easily by the issue of cards with photographs on them.

Ian Paisley: The hon. Gentleman mentions intimidation. People are visited and asked for their medical cards, which are taken from them. That is the highest form of intimidation, but it happens regularly in some areas, where two men go to people's doors saying that they are collecting medical cards, and all those votes are then cast in a clandestine and illegal way.

Harry Barnes: Of course, that problem will be tackled under the Bill, but a similar problem will remain because people may have other forms of identification and their electoral cards taken away from them. That is why returning officers need to check dates of birth at polling stations. The solution suggested in the Bill is that, except in the case of incapacitated and illiterate people, dates of birth and signatures will be required when registration takes place.
	As my hon. Friend the Minister has said, the Select Committee and the forum committee suggested that national insurance numbers should also be used. Such a suggestion is not unique in electoral activities throughout the world. Some countries have identity cards and they use them in their electoral systems. I am increasingly of the opinion that identity cards would be fruitful in achieving full and correct registration in the United Kingdom generally.
	In Malta, for example, people's identification numbers appear on the electoral register and their dates of birth can be worked out from those numbers. That system functions well in a small country that prides itself on the fact that more than 90 per cent. of its people turn out at elections. Malta operates a system in which cards with photographs on them are issued at each election. People hand in those cards at the polling stations, so those who are found to have old cards did not vote at previous elections.
	Presiding officers can now ask people for additional informationtheir date of birthwhen the vote takes place, but why cannot signatures also be used, as they could also be checked at polling stations? Surely if there is any doubt about whether someone has stolen a card and has had the wit to discover the date of birth of the person from whom it was stolen, the signature would constitute an extra factor. In fact, signatures are only being used to check postal and proxy applications. It is right that signatures should be used for those purposes, and the committee of the Northern Ireland Forum made recommendations along those lines. It said:
	In addition, the Committee believes that consideration should also be given to implementing procedures whereby each elector should be required to sign the electoral register and a comparison of the signature on the register and the one which was provided on the registration form, made by the polling station officials before a voting paper is handed over.
	That would provide an extra check, and it is a point that we could pursue in Committee.
	The election identity card will replace other documents that do not bear a photograph and it could be used in the same way as a passport or driving licence. However, we must be careful not to create two classes of citizens. Some people already have the passports and driving licences that they obtained for other purposes while others will have to search out the electoral identity card that will be freely supplied. When my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) was a Minister in the Northern Ireland Office, he pointed out that considerable efforts would be made to ensure that people had electoral registration cards. He said:
	We will have to make enormous efforts to ensure that the obtaining of a voter identity card is as easy as possible, even to the extent of having mobile units go round the streets so that people can step outside their door and make the necessary arrangements.[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 29 March 2001; Vol. 366, c. 347WH.]
	I welcome such an approach, but why will not everyone be obliged to take part in it?
	The White Paper suggests that 400,000 to 600,000 electors in Northern Ireland may need electoral identity cards. They are part of an electorate of 1.2 million, so it is possible that one third or 50 per cent. of the electorate may be involved in the new form of registration. To support the view that there should be an electoral registration card, I cite the views of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. In response to evidence given by the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Dr. Mowlam, it stated:
	The Secretary of State, rightly, expressed dislike for a system which provided for different types of documentation, according to whether a voter drove a car or had travelled abroad. She felt that this was divisive and we agree.
	The question that elicited that response from Dr. Mowlam was asked by the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) and, in reply, she said:
	I do not want a two-tier, two-class system whereby you carry an ID voting card because you do not have anything else . . . I do not want us to have a two-tier system whereby if you do not have a driving licence you have to carry that. That sticks in my throat.
	Such a system sticks in my throat for practical democratic reasons. The people who do not have driving licences or passports are likely to be more elderly and poorer and it might be more difficult to persuade them to take up the provisions on offer. They will be much less likely to do so if they do not act together with other people.
	I hope that the Bill will be amended so that that defect is overcome and that we operate with a card that is used by everyone. That might lead us to consider seriously whether we should use identity cards as the basis for what takes place at the polling station.

Lembit �pik: I was startled to learn that the first round of the leadership election in the Conservative party coincides with the election of the chairman of the parliamentary Labour party. Surely that is more than a coincidence; or perhaps it is the same election, which would confirm a suspicion that Liberal Democrats have harboured for some time. Let us hope that no electoral fraud is on the go. For the sake of clarification, I point out that I am standing in neither election.
	In a way, electoral fraud involves the act of being too eager to vote. Although turnout in the general election overall was down to about 60 per cent., turnout in Northern Ireland can in some circumstances be as high as 200 per cent. The challenge therefore is to get people to vote but to vote only once and without pretending to be someone else.
	As we all know, the 1997 general election caused the publication of the several reports that have already been mentioned. Those reports by the Northern Ireland Forum for political dialogue, the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee of the House of Commons and the Secretary of State's Department make the problem clear. They also make it clear that we need some sort of legislative solution because nothing else has worked so far.
	In the Westminster Hall debate on 29 March this year, it became clear that there was considerable consensus in the House on this issue. Liberal Democrats form part of that consensus and we accept the need for a Bill. However, as the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) pointed out, it is a shame that it has taken so long for it to come before the House. Had it been debated before the 2001 general election, it is possible that it would have had a material impact on election outcomes in Northern Ireland. Let us hope that there is no further delay and that the Bill is implemented before the next elections in Northern Ireland.
	We all know that vote-stealing is prevalent in the Province and takes place to a much greater extent than elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Democracy is very much compromised by such activity. Trying to cheat the system is not only very naughty but actually undermines the system for everybody. I also suspect that it is probably damaging to the organisations implicated in illegal activities, because they lose a great deal of credibility with law-abiding citizens who might otherwise be persuaded to vote for them. After all, it is better to vote for an organisation that we do not fully agree with but that we trust than for an organisation that looks like it is willing to pervert the system of democracy in the interest of achieving its ends.
	Although it is difficult to quantify the level of abuse taking place during elections in Northern Ireland, it takes place at significant and, at times, possibly election- deciding levels. The report of the elections review Administering Elections in Northern Ireland states:
	In the case of the absent vote facility, it is clear from the RUC's investigations, instigated by the Chief Electoral Officer, that there is evidence to show a high level of malpractice. Personation at polling stations has, however, been impossible to quantify . . . However, despite the fact that no-one has come forward with evidence . . . the experience of the RUC officers on duty at polling stations certainly suggests that abuse is taking place.
	That quotations makes two things clear. The first is that there is a strong belief within the Royal Ulster Constabulary that such events take place and, secondly, that it is extremely hard under current arrangements to bring about convictions. No one is willing to stand up and face the inevitable intimidation that they would receive for blowing the whistle on these activities. We need legislation to take the responsibility from people who reasonably and understandably do not come forward, and to ensure that the state has the power to impose rightful processes in the place of those that are currently being perverted.
	Although it is hard to prove specific cases of electoral fraud, we have a duty to do what we can to stop it. The Bill and the White Paper Combating Electoral Fraud in Northern Ireland have a good chance of doing that if they are implemented correctly.
	The basis for all electoral activity in Northern Ireland is the electoral register. Unless it is accurate, the opportunities for malpractice are great. The White Paper, which was published in March, states that the chief electoral officer believes that the register is 91 per cent. complete and 94 per cent. accurate. Those figures are pretty good, but they still allow opportunities for fraud to occur and that can make a real difference. Of the 18 Northern Ireland seats in the general election, two had majorities of fewer than 130 votes and four had majorities of fewer than 1,200. With such close results, we must be sure that no funny business is going on. Electoral fraud is a clear danger because it can significantly alter the balance of outcomes in the Province.
	On the Bill's detail, during the registration process it is right to collect signatures and dates of birth as personal identifiers. Indeed, that has been extensively discussed. It is interesting to know how the information will be gathered and stored. The elections review recommended several ways that could be doneon paper or electronically, each of which has pluses and minuses. Whichever system is used, the electorate must find it user-friendly and it must be accurate. After all, it is vital that the system does not introduce new, unintended inaccuracies because of the methods used to store the information. What thought has been given to storage and gathering techniques? We want to ensure that individuals who are innocent of any wrongdoing and eligible to vote do not fall out of the system because of an error or oversight.
	The Bill allows the presiding officer discretionary powers to refuse a ballot paper if he has asked for a voter's date of birth and there is still doubt about the voter's identity, prompted either by the information in the specific document or the apparent age of the voter compared with the date of birth supplied. I welcome that measure. I raised the problem in Westminster Hall on 29 March when I explained that it would be possible for me turn up at a polling station with my grandfather's pension book and say that my date of birth was 1916. I am going grey before my time, but few would believe that I am 85, although some hon. Members might think differently. However, the age gap could be much smaller and the parameters are wide enough to make it possible to vote illegally. So long as the safety measures are watertight before individuals turn up at the polling station, the discretionary powers are a key part of what will make the Bill work.
	It has been suggested that the system is most open to abuse through the absent vote procedure. There is a remarkably high rate of absent voting in some areas of Northern Ireland and postal votes are claimed by a larger proportion of people than might be expected given its circumstances. Fraudulent applications are unquestionably made, but we do not know the exact proportion. Getting away with fraud by casting an absent vote in Northern Ireland is probably more straightforward than going to the polling station in person.
	Comparing a registered signature with what is on an application for an absent vote will be useful in reducing the chances of fraud, but the White Paper also suggested that forgery could be further reduced by adding a serial number or a bar code to the application form. The Minister also mentioned that. Do the Government intend to redesign the application forms for absent votes in that way? Frankly, I worry that postal vote fraud across the United Kingdom in general is more common than we acknowledge. It is hard to police and if we can find a system that works in Northern Ireland we might want to consider expanding the technique to the rest of the UK. I leave that thought with the Minister.
	The Liberal Democrats also welcome the Government's intention to introduce an electoral identity card, although I have some concern about its exact nature. The Minister envisages that in the long term it will be a smart card. By incorporating a computer chip, it will be fairly secure and comprehensive in its content. Although that would be a bit more expensive to produce, it would be much more secure than a plastic or embossed card, which would take us back to square one because it is relatively easy to copy or amend. Someone only has to forge a card with their photograph to put electoral fraud back in business.
	Although I welcome what the Minister said about smart cards, we should seriously consider introducing them this time around and accept that we might have to update the technology later. The business sector has extensive experience of smart cards and a model might exist that has been tested in industrial and commercial environments which could be applied to the system in Northern Ireland. I hope that the Minister will think again about introducing a smart card earlier so that we do not risk using a much more forgeable plastic or embossed card, which I fear will be the interim step.
	Although the Bill provides for the electoral identity card to be added to the list of specified documents that are needed to obtain a ballot paper, I am worried that there is no provision to remove other documents on the list which are extremely easy to forge, such as the medical card. The hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) made an important point about that. No one wants to disfranchise honest voters, but the identity card will be more effective and harder to forge if it is produced properly as a smart card. We need to think seriously about that.
	If we are making a concerted effort to highlight the existence of an electoral identity card, especially for the elderly and infirm, it is sensible to think about abandoning some documents so that we remove the most obvious forms of forgery and malpractice from the electoral process. The Minister commented on that, but I hope that we will be clearer on the subject in Committee so that we can be confident that we are taking a radical step by eliminating some of the open goals for opportunists.
	I hope that the Minister will answer my questions. I trust that he agrees with the need to balance the maintenance of wide access to voting with protecting the fairness of our democracy. We will not eliminate electoral fraud completely, but we can significantly reduce the theft of votes and increase the chances of detection.
	To some extent, the proposals infringe on a person's privacy. They require more information than is asked for in elections elsewhere in the UK. I am concerned that we should not set an open-ended precedent. I do not like the way that the state's interference in personal matters is developing in our society. The reach of the state is encroaching ever further on our freedom and privacy. In that context, the Bill is another move in the wrong direction. It is an evil, but the difficulty is that without it a small number of cheats stand to make a huge difference to other people's freedom to have a fair electoral process. I may not like it, but I am willing to live with it because, on balance, it improves the important electoral process in Northern Ireland.
	However, let me put down a marker: there must be a limit to how far we go. The Minister agreed with that. If we do not temper the tendency, one day we will look back and discover that there is no way to return to the relative, although diminishing, freedoms in British society. As other hon. Members said, if we push too far, we will create barriers that disfranchise people who cannot be bothered with the complexities of proving their identity by jumping through the hoops before they are allowed to vote.
	That said, it is our role to protect the interests of the vast majority of Northern Ireland citizens who respect democracy. The Bill gives us a chance to challenge the people who prefer to cheat the electoral system than to win elections fair and square. Electoral fraud says more about the people who commit it than it does about what they stand for, because they throw their toys out of the pram. I hope that the House will accept that a consensus on the Bill has evolved in our discussions to date, and the Liberal Democrats will certainly support it this evening.

Lady Hermon: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to speak in this debate.
	May I congratulate the Minister on his first outing at the Dispatch Box? Ulster Unionist Members also have high expectations that he will make a positive contribution to business in Northern Ireland, so he has a lot to live up to.
	I apologise for the absence of several of my colleagues. They too are involved in the talks about the Belfast agreement, so duty calls them elsewhere.
	I have listened to anecdotal evidence of electoral fraud. Also, I grew up in Fermanagh and South Tyrone, where I frequently heard the words, Vote early and vote often, so I can tell the House that in those days, which were not long ago, it was easier to identify electoral fraud because the reward for personation was a bottle of Guinness. For those hon. Members who do not understand how powerful a bottle of Guinness is, I should point out that by 10 o'clock in the evening, it was easy to identify those who had benefited from voting early and voting often. I should add that, having been brought up in a strict Presbyterian home, I just voted once.
	The Minister has a particular interest in human rights, so I begin my comments on the Bill by reminding him of the Government's obligations to everyone in the United Kingdom, including those of us in Northern Ireland. The Minister will know that under article 3 of the first protocol of the European convention on human rights, which is of course now part and parcel of our domestic law, by virtue of the Human Rights Act 1998, the Government have a clear duty: not only must they hold free elections at reasonable intervals by secret ballot, but they must do so
	under conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature.
	The Government have a duty to impose conditions that will ensurenot merely try to ensurethe free expression of the people's wishes.
	For too many years we in Northern Ireland have had to endure electoral fraud, rather than enjoy conditions that ensure the free expression of people's voting preferences. The White Paper Combating Electoral Fraud in Northern Ireland was published in March. The title itself encouraged us to believe that, for a change, the Government were serious about eradicating electoral fraud. Our hopes were high when we read that they pledged
	to put in place effective measures to prevent electoral abuse wherever it occurs.
	I regret to report that my hopes have been dashed by the Bill. I am bitterly disappointed because it fails fully to implement the proposals in the White Paper, and not being a patient person at the best of times I thought that three years was a long time to wait for it. Having waited for those three years and for a month after the local elections and the general election, we have before us a weak Bill. My list of its various weaknesses will not be exhaustive because I do not want to keep hon. Members here for a long time.
	Although the White Paper rightly focused on intimidation at polling stations, the Bill completely ignores it. We have just had an election in which two RUC officers and a bystander were injured at a polling station. Intimidation is a serious problem, and I would like the Government to pay attention to it in Committee.
	The Bill is also silent on multiple registration. The Minister has kindly defended multiple registration on the grounds of convenience for students and people who live in different places. However, people have to identify their main residence for the purposes of taxation, and I see no justification for a difference in electoral law. Multiple registration is far too open to abuse, so it should be made illegal. A person should be asked to register and vote where they reside for the majority of the time, and since no one can reside in two places for the majority of the time everyone must choose one residence.
	On the new identifiers of dates of birth and signatures, I feel compelled to remind the Government that electoral fraud in Northern Ireland is orchestrated and widespread, and has a significant impact on election results. It devalues the results and undermines the authority of those who are elected. I regret that the Bill fails to give a statutory basis to increased powers and increased staffing for the electoral office investigation teams, which would enable them to scrutinise thoroughly the accuracy of the signatures and dates of birth on the electoral canvass.

Lembit �pik: Could we not allow multiple registration to continue with the operation of a smart card, which would be able to register whether people had voted? I ask because many people in the United Kingdom as a whole would be compromised if we required them to choose one place or another for their registration, and a smart card would provide an electronic solution to the problem.

Lady Hermon: We are told that Northern Ireland leads the way in so many things, such as policing reform and human rights legislation, so I hope that smart card technology will be introduced to allow us to lead the way in electoral registration.
	To include in the Bill an exception to the rule requiring signatures on the electoral canvass will, I fear, prove to be a gift horse to those who are intent on fraud, and people are intent on it. The gift horse comes in the form of the discretion afforded to the chief electoral officer to dispense with the requirement for a signature
	if he is satisfied that it is not reasonably practicable for that person to sign . . . because of any incapacity of his or because he is unable to read.
	Forgive me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I sound cynical when I predict an increase in the recorded illiteracy rate in Northern Ireland. It would appear logical and sensible that those who are genuinely incapacitated or unable to read should be able to avail themselves of the new identity card proposed in the Bill. That would close a potential loophole for those who are intent on fraud.
	Although Ulster Unionist Members welcome the introduction of the new, voluntary identity cards, we very much regret that the Bill does not end the use of non-photographic forms of identity, such as medical cards which, as the Minister knows, have enabled fraudulent activities in Northern Ireland to become a growth industry. The fact that there is no firm timetable for phasing out those forms of ID is a severe failing of the Bill, and I ask the Minister to give it his attention in Committee.
	There is no denying that absent votes represent a major source of electoral fraud. It is on record that in the 1997 general election, Northern Ireland constituencies had on average twice as many absent voters as constituencies in Great Britain. That cannot be explained simply by the fact that we have more rural constituencies. There is a huge inconsistency in the distribution of absent votes in Northern Ireland.
	The most recent election results show that in West Tyrone, which was won by Sinn Fein, there were 5,443 absent votes, and in Fermanagh and South Tyrone, which was also taken by Sinn Fein, there were 5,784 absent votes. Let us compare those figures with the 1,200 absent votes in my constituency of North Down, which has an average number of such votes. In Lagan Valley, we had 1,500. Absent votes allow fraud and should be given much more detailed attention in the Bill.
	I therefore repeat my introductory remarks to the Government: they have an obligation under the Human Rights Act to ensure that conditions are put in place guaranteeing people free expression of their choice of legislature. It would be distinctly embarrassing for the Government to be taken to task by a voter who said that, in fact, they were breaching their human rights obligations. As I mentioned, in Northern Ireland we are told regularly that we are leading the way on police reform, human rights and the equality agenda. You name it, we have got it and are leading the way. We should lead the way with smart cards and new technology. The technology is out there; it should not be our future but our present. Having waited impatiently for the Bill for three years, I now urge the Minister to follow it quickly with more substantial reform to eradicate, rather than acquiesce in, electoral fraud.

Peter Robinson: First, I congratulate the Minister and welcome his debut at the Dispatch Box. For some time he was a colleague of mine on the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs whereas I am sure that the hon. Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs) agreeshe played a constructive role. Unlike many others from the major parties who served on the Select Committee almost as place fillers, he showed a conscientious interest in the matters before him and played a full part in our proceedings. Indeed, I took the trouble to dredge up the Select Committee report on electoral abuse to look at his contribution, and I shall refer later to some of the interesting points that he made. I join him in his tribute to the hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), with whom many of us had meetings on this subject in Northern Ireland, and who showed an interest in attempting to do something that would stop the electoral abuse about which we all had a growing concern.
	The House, I am sure, will give the Bill a broad welcomeat least in general terms. It would hard for it to do otherwise. It is obscene that anyone's vote should be stolen, and that anyone should take more than one vote in their own name. In Northern Ireland, particularly with proportional representation by means of the single transferable vote, the stealing of one vote by one person can deny the rights of thousands of people, because a fraction of one vote in a PR election can determine a seat. That form of cheating must be brought to an end as far as possible.
	The Minister made some remarks about the history of interest in the subject. As the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), who came as a witness before the Northern Ireland Forum committee on which I served, said, that committee produced the first recent report on the subject. That report was valuable and drew attention to the type of problem faced in elections in Northern Ireland. However, the forum committee, like the Select Committee, felt the same frustration that the Minister expressed in the Select Committee when attempting to quantify the scale of the problem during the cross-examinationI think it is fair to call it thatof Pat Bradley, who was then chief electoral officer for Northern Ireland. Everybody knew that abuse was taking place on a considerable scale, but there did not seem to be any real attempt by the electoral office to quantify it.
	Although the Bill is being introduced now, it is still important for the electoral office to conduct an exercise to quantify the level of electoral abuse. Evidence both to the forum committee and to the Select Committee produced a number of examples of considerable electoral abuse, giving us a flavour of the high level of electoral abuse in Northern Ireland and demonstrating the need to take action.
	The Select Committee reported in March 1998, but it had to return to the subject by urgingI was going to say prodding, but it may not be appropriate to use that word about Northern Ireland matters in the Housethe Secretary of State to introduce the legislation that had been promised on the subject. I agree with those who have already drawn attention to foot-dragging by Ministers and by the Northern Ireland Office in introducing the Bill.
	It therefore came as something of a surprise when, only a few months before parliamentary and local government elections, the then Minister, the hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East, told us that he was contemplating rushing the legislation through before the end of the last Parliament. For many of us, that would have been the worst of all worlds; we would have had new legislation without ID cards being distributed, and people would start to be disfranchised because of the loss of the usual identifiersmedical cards and benefit books.
	Existing methods of identification are fairly well known; there has already been reference to the driving licence. During his speech, the Minister was twice asked to give way by Members wishing to ask about the driving licence. I do not know about the rest of the House, but he certainly did not convince me that it was necessary to have both parts of the driving licence. Indeed, he went on to explain the attributes of the new card. The explanatory notes to the Bill say that the electoral identity card will show
	the elector's full name and date of birth, his photograph, the card's expiry date.
	Consistent with that, the Minister said that those would be the features of the identification card.
	I have with me the plastic part of the driving licence used in Northern Ireland, and on it is a nameindeed, it goes further, it has an address as wella date of birth, an expiry date and a photograph, all of which are features that the Minister says his identity card will have. The driving licence has not only the additional feature of an address, but a signature too, so in many ways it is a better identification card than that proposed by the Minister. However, when I look at the part of the driving licence that the Minister tells us it is essential to have along with the plastic card, I see nothing on it that adds in any way to the information required by the presiding officer in any polling station. Indeed, if any part of the present two-part driving licence is easy to forge it is that piece, which, we think, can be discarded.

Martin Smyth: Does my hon. Friend agree that the real problem is that the Minister was speaking as a legalist? He was just interpreting the law, whereas I was asking whether there was an attempt to change the law to give flexibility, as presiding officers act strictly in accordance with the law. All I was asking for was an improvement in the law to provide better identification.

Peter Robinson: The Under-Secretary always speaks as a lawyer. I believe that the law was his profession in Scotland.

Kevin McNamara: He speaks from the heart.

Peter Robinson: Of course he does that too. However, I hope that he will explain what is so essential in the additional sheet of the driving licence that it can serve as an identifier at the polling station. Nothing in the additional sheet qualifies it for that. The card from the driving licence is as effective, if not more effective, than the Under-Secretary's proposal, at least in the interim.

Ian Paisley: It was interesting that at the last election, the chief electoral officer felt that he had to go on television to tell people that it did not matter if their driving licence had the wrong address, because its purpose was to identify the person, not where they lived.

Peter Robinson: That emphasises the point. I know from speaking to my workers at polling stations, and to those who work for the chief electoral officer on election day, that there is a recurring problem of people turning up with one part of a driving licence and being sent away. Often, they do not return, sometimes simply because of the inconvenience.

Harry Barnes: Would not the problem be overcome by using only one cardthe electoral cardinstead of driving licences and passports? Everyone would be subject to the same arrangements, and the difficulty of determining which bit of the driving licence to hand in would be resolved.

Peter Robinson: It would if everyone had the card. I shall return to that idea later. However, I am worried that we could disfranchise many people simply because they will not go through the rigmarole necessary to get the card.
	Of the three most common methods of electoral abuse, the first is multiple entry. I am not convinced that anyone needs to be registered at more than one address, whether in one constituency or in several. There is no advantage to it, and the generosity of the postal vote arrangements means that people can easily choose their main or preferred address and use a postal vote from wherever they are resident at the time of the election.

Lembit �pik: On the mainland of the United Kingdom, the electoral register and the council tax system are closely connected. Would not a smart card resolve the problemnot the card that the Under-Secretary mentioned, but a smart card that showed whether a person had voted? That would prevent people from voting more than once even if they had multiple addresses.

Peter Robinson: It would, and the smart card was the Select Committee's preferred option. However, the Under-Secretary is not offering that, at least not immediately. He is undertaking a study in the Northern Ireland Office to determine progress on the advances in appropriate technology, but the card that he is currently offering would not carry out that function.
	The BBC Spotlight programme suggested that multiple entry was a considerable problem. It itemised several cases of six and more people being registered at one-bedroom flatsand those people were all voting. Indeed, in some cases, the same six people were voting from each flat. They happened to be the so-called bodyguards of the Member who was elected for the constituency of Belfast, West (Mr. Adams).

Harry Barnes: There would be no problem in ending multiple registration. This did not apply in Northern Ireland, but when we had the poll tax, we got used to a system whereby a person's main or sole place of residence had to be designated. The systemunfortunately, in that caseoperated effectively. We could do the same with electoral registration: people could designate their main or sole place of residence, and their vote would be based there. If they moved, there would be a rolling register, and they could be registered at their new residence.

Peter Robinson: The position as regards the electoral register is improving, and there is no barrier to getting on to the register in Northern Ireland; I believe that people can get on it in a month. That presents no difficulty. However, as the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) said, the best option is a smart card, which tells a story when it is read at the polling station, and shows whether the person has already voted.
	Apart from organised fraud through multiple registration, there is home-grown abuse, whereby mothers or fathers register children who have left the house some years ago because they want to give them the opportunity to vote in Northern Ireland even if they do not return to do so. Some also vote elsewhere, and others do not live in the United Kingdom. Those practices have grown over the years.
	Multiple registration applies especially with students who come to Belfast. They get a vote there and influence elections, probably more in the constituency of the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) than anywhere else. They then return to Fermanagh and South Tyrone, West Tyrone or Mid-Ulster to cast their votes there, too. The electoral office could identify multiple registrations through national insurance numbers, but that will be effective only if the Government are prepared to grasp the nettle and prohibit anyone from being registered at more than one address.

Des Browne: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves multiple registration, perhaps he will consider whether someone who is a council tax payer in two areas should have the opportunity of voting in council elections in both areas.

Peter Robinson: The Under-Secretary forgets the history of the issue in Northern Ireland. He appears to have forgotten the principle of one man, one vote. It was the practice of the Unionist Government to follow what happened in the rest of the United Kingdom, and whoever paid the piper called the tune. People were therefore allowed to vote in an area where they subscribed healthily to the rateable value and contributed to the local council. That meant that in some areas, people had two, three or five votes. That was deemed inappropriate, and the Labour party was most vociferous in its condemnation.

Des Browne: I am conscious that I am interrupting the hon. Gentleman, but I suspect that he inadvertently misrepresented my argument. I did not suggest that people who have more than one house in the same council area should be able vote more than oncebut when there is no such conflict and people contribute through council tax in separate council areas, how do we overcome the problem of taxation without representation?

Peter Robinson: It was Labour party policy that what the Under-Secretary describes should not happen in Northern Ireland. There is no great difference between voting more than once in one constituency and influencing the outcome of an election by voting in more than one constituency. It would probably assist Unionism in Northern Ireland if the right outlined by the Under-Secretary existed. However, people in Northern Ireland are currently allowed to vote in only one constituency.

Des Browne: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way to me a third time, but either he misunderstands my point or he is woefully misrepresenting me. I have never suggested that people should be allowed to vote in more than one parliamentary constituency. I merely ask him to consider the simple problem of overcoming the difficulty of taxation without representation for those who pay council tax in two council areas. I do not want to complicate matters by reciting the history of the Northern Ireland electoral system or discussing votes based on houses. I want him to answer my simple point.

Peter Robinson: The Minister seems to think that there is some great distinction between the ability to vote more than once in a Westminster election and the ability to vote in two council elections. It was in council areas that the main problem in Northern Ireland arose, as it was decided that people should not vote more than once at council level.

Kevin McNamara: The hon. Gentleman is right that the main objection concerned council areas. It was raised not because a person could vote once in a particular area, but because he could have up to eight or nine individual votes.

Peter Robinson: Perhaps there is some distinction between electoral law in Northern Ireland and in the rest of the United Kingdom. In Northern Ireland, one can vote in only one council area in any election.

Martin Smyth: I take the point that has been made. There was never a distinction in parliamentary or Stormont elections, but the world got the message of one man, one vote. Only council elections were affected. People who were working and paying rates in one place but living in another were entitled to several votes, but the practice was done away with, largely because of agitation from this House. When the last Government sought to introduce the council tax, or the poll charge, it was not extended to Northern Ireland, as they did not want to recognise that it had been right to maintain the ratepayer's franchise.

Peter Robinson: I live in the council area of Castlereagh and I am entitled to vote there. I have several offices in Belfast, but I am not entitled to vote there.

Dominic Grieve: I am beginning to wonder whether I have failed to understand the franchise system, or whether the Northern Ireland system is completely distinct. Will the hon. Gentleman provide some clarification? Let us forget about his business premises. If he happened to have one home in Belfast and another in a different council area, would not he be entitled to vote in council elections in both places?

Peter Robinson: No, I would not have such an entitlement, as this House changed the law to ensure that I could not vote in two places. One of the front runners on the issue happened to be the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), who argued that people should have only one vote, no matter what the circumstances in Northern Ireland. To that extent, Northern Ireland differs from the rest of the United Kingdom.

Lembit �pik: At the core of this debate is the question whether one should be able to register to vote in more than one place. I agree with the Minister that people should be entitled properly to register. Do not his words point to the inescapable fact that the only way forward is to introduce a mechanism such as a smart card to ensure that nobody cheats the system?

Peter Robinson: The Minister's words showed that he had been taking his decisions on multiple registration on the assumption that people were entitled to vote in more than one constituency at local government level. The basis on which he built his approach has now been taken from beneath him, so he has no argument left regarding multiple registration.

Ian Paisley: The only benefit that a person gets by registering in two places is that he can nominate someone as a councillor or even a Member of Parliament. He cannot, however, vote in two places.

Peter Robinson: There are some other advantages in having one's name on an electoral register, such as in respect of mortgages and some commercial aims. None the less, the Minister must face up to the issue of multiple entry in the register. I hope that the Government do not discriminate against my party as they did with the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000. If they give us some representation on the Committee that will consider the Bill, we will have the opportunity to scrutinise the matter in more detail.
	Multiple registration was only the first of three aspects of electoral abuse about which I wanted to speak. Indeed, it was the smallest of the three, as far as my notes were concerned. I shall now move on to personation, which is a key factor. Hon. Members have referred to the early custom of going to a house where alternative clothes were available and changing in order to vote again. Sometimes, vans would be driving around and people would go into them to change their clothes. I do not want to cause any embarrassment to my colleagues along the Bench, but I point out that the practice was carried out in a fulsome way by the Ulster Unionist party in earlier days. The then Republican Clubs party followed on in West Belfast, and there has been some reference to Lord Fitt's confessions on the matter.
	Even in my earliest days in politics, when people who had been in the Ulster Unionist party suggested that we should make such an addition to our campaign tactics, I had to tell them that if they used the same energy in going to houses, pulling people out and getting them to the polling stations, they would probably end up with more votes. Even before the law on identification changed, the truth of that argument was realised and that method of stealing votes seemed to dissipate considerably.
	The whole picture was changed by the entry into the political process of what was effectively a paramilitary army that had all the discipline and numbers that were required to organise major vote theft. There can be no doubt that Sinn Fein organised the stealing of votes from those whom it might have deemed to be its supporters. It also arranged, perhaps more enthusiastically, to steal the votes of people whom it knew to be opponents. We were given ample evidence that Sinn Fein did that by using the medical card in particular. For example, there was evidence that the Royal Ulster Constabulary had raided a propertyI think that it was in Londonderrywhere it found the burnt remains of medical cards that had been printed and were being used for vote stealing.
	My colleagues in various parts of the Province told us how medical cards were distributed from car boots outside polling stations to willing people who came along to take the votes of others. It is difficult to quantify the scale of such abuse but it seems to have been a considerable problem, and it still is. The removal of the medical card and benefit books will assist in tackling the abuse only if there is a substitute to ensure that decent people who want to exercise their vote will not be disfranchised because they do not have one of the remaining identification documents. For example, driving licences and passports are not significantly used by senior citizens. Of course, some of them will have one or both of those documents, but our studies have overwhelmingly shown that about 70 per cent. of the people who use identification at the polling stations use either the medical card or benefit books. They do so because those are the most readily available documents.
	I want to help the Minister and I hope that he will consider a suggestion. He probably knows that in Northern Ireland, as a result of good, sound Democratic Unionist party policy, free fares have come to fruition. Senior citizens of 65 and above will be able to travel for free in Northern Ireland on the production of a pass. That indicates that a new photographic pass will be produced over the coming months. It will bear a name and all the features that the Minister has identified as necessary for his identification card. One benefit of including the new bus pass as a document suitable for identification may be that there will be an incentive for a large section of the community to obtain the pass.
	Many of my colleagues might think the fact that people will be able to vote for them incentive enough to obtain an identification card. They might find that there is an even greater incentive if a section of the community can have free travel throughout Northern Ireland and, if it is wished, into the Irish Republic, on the ground of having an identification card in the name of the Department for Regional Development.
	If the Minister is not prepared to recognise such a pass as an acceptable document, he could at least piggy-back his scheme when the passes are being handed out. There is no reason why two passes could not be secured at the same time. I am sure that if his office were to make contact with the Department for Regional Development and Translink, it would be possible for the two documents to be handed out at the one photo session. That would perhaps ensure a greater uptake from the section of the community that I think will be the most difficult to get registered under the new scheme.
	I hope that the Minister will consider that. Like the Select Committee, I recognise the validity of his argument that an identity card without a photograph would not be of much value in a polling station. Members of the security forces were outraged that people could enter a polling station with a medical card bearing no photograph and little verification, yet they could produce a police warrant or an Royal Irish Regiment document, which would not be acceptable. The Minister might want to consider in Committee whether a document is acceptable as long as it is a photo-identity card that is issued by government, in whatever form.
	The remedy in the Bill for personation is date of birth. It is a help, but it will not be significant in assisting polling station personnel. It is difficult even to come close in determining the ages of some individuals. I am not sure how brave the staff in polling stations will be in questioning people, especially those of the fair gender, about their age, particularly if there has to be an assumption that they are older than they are claiming to be on the register, which contains their date of birth.
	I am not sure to what extent the inclusion of date of birth will be a help. With the exception of the financial restrictions that might be applied, I cannot understand why signature was not brought forward as a possible way of confirming the identity of a person in a polling station. I think that the Minister was sold on that idea when he was a member of the Select Committee. The Committee recognised that equipment would be available digitally to compare the signature given at a polling station with that on the special electoral register available to the polling clerks at the station. A significant amount of equipment would have to be purchased for the polling stations, but it would provide a fairly secure mechanism to ensure that personation did not occur.

Dominic Grieve: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's point about signatures. My professional experience as a barrister is that comparing signatures digitally is far-fetched. People's signatures can vary widely depending on whether they write fast or slowly. For example, the signature that one produces as a specimen often bears little relationship to the scrawl that is appended, perfectly legitimately, to the bottom of documents.

Peter Robinson: I do not want to question the experience that the hon. Gentleman may have. However, the evidence that the Select Committee received was that the equipment available could judge a comparator on many points. The argument was advanced to the Committee that it was possible and reliable to use such equipment. I am sure that the Minister will require such equipment to be used in the electoral office when a signature is being used as a comparator for signatures on postal vote applications. It is the Government's intention that there should be a signature on the registration document for each person who is applying to be entitled to a vote. In the context of absent voting, signatures can be examined to ensure that there is no forgery and that no invalid applications are being made.
	It appears that those who are abusing the system concentrate on absent voting, for obvious reasons. It is the area where it is the most difficult for them to be caught. They do not present themselves in front of someone, so they cannot be nabbed. They can abuse the system at a distance in anonymity and hope to get away with it.
	Sufficient examples have been given during the debate of the number of postal votes in Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) dealt with the extent of absent voting in Fermanagh and South Tyrone and West Tyrone, for example, where almost 10 per cent. of those entitled to vote voted by postal vote or by proxy. That must be an indication of the great need for medical services there or a signal of electoral abuse. It cannot be justified by comparison with any other constituency in the United Kingdom.
	In the Select Committee and the forum committee, we heard from the chief electoral officer at the time of examples of abuse of the system. At one election, an individual applied for a postal vote because he was having his legs amputated, but when the next election came round, he was going on a skiing holiday. I am sure that it is possible for someone who has had his legs amputated to go skiing, but it would be sufficient to alert me to the possibility of electoral abuse.
	The electoral office receives about 10,000 applications only days before it must distribute postal vote documents. There is little opportunity for it to engage in the necessary scrutiny. The evidence that the Select Committee received showed that the only scrutiny undertaken was to ensure that the forms had been completed properly, with names, addresses and doctors' signatures. When the forms were scrutinised more fully after the election, it was discovered that the same doctors' names appeared over and over again. In some instances they appeared on hundreds of applications, and related to people who were not their patients. The forms indicated that these people had an incapacity and could not attend the polling station.
	There must be a penalty for doctors who are prepared to engage in such electoral abuse. They have no knowledge of the patient, yet they are willing to sign that the person is incapable of going to the polling station to register his vote. Given the volume of applications in certain areas of the Province, it is abundantly clear that there is fraudulent use of the absent voter system.
	Of course, electoral fraud is committed with more sophistication now. Sinn Fein-IRA purchase copies of the marked register, from which they can determine who has not voted in a series of elections. They know that if they take those votes, it will not come to the attention of the electoral office. They provide themselves with absent voter application forms for those people. They intercept the forms from the Post Officeagain, there was evidence of that happening. Alternatively, they go to the house and take the application form before the person who is receiving it ever has the opportunity to vote; in some cases, they do so before that person has had the opportunity even to open the envelope. That is how it is done: it is a sophisticated operation by those who are intent on abusing the electoral system.
	The signature will assist only if there is sufficient time to carry out the investigations. If the Minister wants to tackle that issue, the electoral office must be provided with the necessary resources. A significant number of people must be put in during the run-up to an election to ensure that the investigations are carried out and that there is proper scrutiny of all the postal and proxy vote applications that come to the office. There are clear resource implications. The Government cannot simply put the legislation through and hope that everything will work out in the electoral office. I trust that the Government are prepared to fund the necessary increase in staff and support at the office.
	I shall describe some of the provisions that the Government should have included in the legislation and that I hope that we can introduce in Committee. To avoid abuse, it is essential that something is done about intimidation. The Minister talked about an exclusion zone, cordon sanitaire, or whatever term the House wishes to use. I agree with him in that I do not believe that that will solve the problem, but unless new powers are given to staff inside the polling station, and to the RUC officers outside it, intimidation will still happen.
	It is not always a question of the intimidation of voters. Indeed, it is difficult to intimidate voters because they can have the last laugh: ultimately, they go into the box and very few people will know what they have done there. It is the intimidation of other political parties' staff and workers in the polling station that gives an advantage to one political group. There must be some cognisance of the fact that additional powers need to be given to the police and to the presiding officer and his staff, so that they can tackle that problem.
	Attention must be paid to access for the disabled. It is all right saying that we will deal with people who defraud votes, but if one stops people who are entitled to vote getting to the polling station, it has the same effect. In my constituency, people have not been able to gain access to a polling station because of steps or because they could not get their wheelchairs through the gates. I am sure that the same tale could be told in other constituencies. There are many different reasons why disabled people cannot gain access. A number of polling stations are not disability-friendly. That problem must be looked at. There should not be a hue and cry simply at the time of the election. I hope that the Minister will instruct the electoral officer to ensure access for the disabled at polling stations.
	There is one further factor that I hope to be able to raise in Committee, if the amendments are selected: bogus opinion polls, which are a method of bending the minds of voters. I say bogus because that is precisely what I mean. It was known that the opinion polls that were printed by the newspapers were bogus; the companies that carried them out must have known. I have seen the detail of how one opinion poll was carried out and I know that it was bogus. I am talking about the main opinion poll that was carried out for the Belfast Telegraph by Ulster Marketing Surveys in the run-up to the two elections on 7 June. UMS deliberately chose areas where my party was not standing as the sampling point.

David Burnside: Will the hon. Gentleman comment on the fact that the opinion poll had no impact on the result in any of the constituencies to which he refers? Although it might have been alarming, it had no impact on the results.

Peter Robinson: I assume that the hon. Gentleman is saying that he thinks that it had no impact because my party did so well and his so badly, but no one could say that it did not have any impact. I assume that since the election, he has not spoken to everyone who voted to find out whether it had any impact on them. As everyone knows, the reality is that he would not put statements into newspapers in Northern Ireland in the run-up to elections if he did not believe that they had some influence on the people who read them. [Interruption.] I can see that I will be called to order soon, so I shall wrap the subject up quickly. There must be some prohibition on people who knowingly carry out an opinion poll in such a way as to produce a result that is in no way a reflection of the support in the country for the political parties involved.
	In general, I welcome the legislation. It can certainly be improved in Committee. I hope that we have the opportunity to do that.

Nigel Dodds: I am delighted to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson). It is obvious from his remarks and the thought that he has given to the subject that he has an enormous contribution to make when the Bill goes into Committee.
	In general terms, I welcome the thrust of the Bill, although areas of it could be improved and strengthened. Like other hon. Members who have spoken, I believe that it is long overdue. The Select Committee report of March 1998 said that this was an urgent and important issue. Indeed, that report followed the report by the Northern Ireland Forum, which has been referred to by several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes). As a member of the Northern Ireland Forum committee, I remember hearing him give evidence. I am delighted that he continues to take a close interest in electoral law and reform in Northern Ireland. Some of his suggestions are constructive and I hope that the Minister will take them on board.
	We have had four elections in Northern Ireland since the Select Committee report was published: the Northern Ireland Assembly elections in 1998; the European elections; and the Westminster and the local government elections, which were held on the same day recently. Three elections were held under the proportional representation system, one under the first-past-the-post system. As has been said, with elections held under the proportional representation system, at times only a relatively small number of votes may be needed to determine who stays in and who goes out of a particular contest, and therefore who ultimately gets elected. Therefore, a significant number of fraudulent votes can have a major impact on the outcome of elections, particularly in local government.
	We debated that issue in the Northern Ireland Forum in 1997. I do not think that any members of the forum believed that we would have another local government election before legislation was introduced in the House to combat electoral fraudespecially when, as has been pointed out, half the postal votes in the 1997 local government elections were fraudulent. That speaks for itself.
	In passing, I make the point that one of the purposes of the legislation is to ensure that those entitled to vote are not disfranchised.
	Recently, there were two elections on the same day in Northern Ireland, one for Members of the House of Commons and one for members of local government. I hope that the experiment was a one-off. Many people in Northern Ireland, noting the number of spoiled papers in both elections, concluded that the holding of two elections on one day under two different voting systemsproportional representation in the local government election, and first past the post in the Westminster electiondisfranchised more voters than were disfranchised by fraud. I hope the Minister will take that on board.
	I support what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East and others about the various bits of documentation that must be produced by those wishing to obtain a ballot paper, especially a driving licence. The issue has already been highlighted so I shall not say much more about it. However, I have often seen voters emerge from polling stations disgusted by the fact that they have not been allowed to vote despite having photographic identificationbus passes or works passes, for example. Meanwhile, they have seen others being given ballot papers following the production of medical cards or benefit booksrightly, under the current legislationwith no photographic identification being required. I am thinking especially of those who produce the part of a driving licence that contains a photograph, but do not produce the part that is necessary for them to obtain a ballot paper. That point should be considered in Committee.
	I am glad that in future there will be an identification card with a photograph that will entitle people to vote. That, I think, is widely welcomed. I suggest to the Minister, however, that the phasing out of other identification documents, such as benefit books and medical cards, should not happen too quickly. As has been said, it will take time to persuade people to apply. We do not want people to be disfranchised because they have no passport or no driving licence, but have not been able to applyor have not got around to applyingfor a photo-identification electoral card. The hon. Member for NorthEast Derbyshireor it may have been the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik)said that the phasing-out should take place speedily, but I think that we should proceed with caution.
	Rolling registration has been widely welcomed in Northern Ireland, and it is working reasonably well. It was a major step forward in terms of electoral law in Northern Ireland, greatly reducing the need for multiple registration. There were exchanges between, for instance, my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East and the Minister about whether it should be possible for voters to register in two places, thus being able to choose where to vote in local government elections. It would be relatively easy to make the same choice under the rolling registration system. For example, those who wanted to vote in a particular council area because they owned property there could simply register to do so.
	I agree with those who oppose the idea of an exclusion zone. I do not think that it would be practical to place such a cordon sanitaire around polling stations. Effectively, however, there is already an exclusion zone at certain polling stations for some voters on both sides of the Northern Ireland community. I know from my practical experience as a candidate that in some areas, where an overwhelming majority of nationalists and only a tiny proportion of Unionists would vote, Unionists are being forced to cast their votes. They feel intimidated by that: they are so put off by having to walk past all the Sinn Fein workers and polling agents that they do not want to vote at all.
	Nationalist voters feel the same. They have to come to an overwhelmingly Unionist polling station in my constituency, in the Ardoyne area, and they may likewise feel intimidated. Some thought should be given to the best way to designate polling stations to allay such fears.
	I agree with what has been said about the entitlement of those with disabilities to vote. After the recent elections, constituents told me that they could not vote at, for instance, Currie primary school in Limestone road because it was necessary to negotiate two sets of steps. That puts off elderly people and makes it out of the question for those with disabilities to vote. On a number of occasions the ballot box was taken out to people so that they could voteunder supervision. That should not be tolerated in a civilised society. People should have the right to proper access to polling stations.
	It is essential for the chief electoral officer, his staff and local electoral officers to have the funds that will enable them to run their operations efficiently and to combat fraud and abuse. I was amazed to discover that while it was deemed permissible for parties and candidates to have copies of the electoral rollthey could buy it in order to address labels and so on for election purposesthey were told, when they asked whether they could have the information on a computer disk, that that was possible but that no computer in Northern Ireland would be able to read it because the software was so antiquated.
	That is the sort of system that the chief electoral officer must tackle and funds are urgently needed to deal with the problems.

Peter Robinson: I know that the Minister will receive a message telling him that plans are already afoot to spend money on that, but that funding will not be available until 2003. That is no use: the money and the equipment must be made available more readily. Even the computer department at Queen's university could not transfer the data on the chief electoral officer's machine to machines that would be used by any of the rest of us.

Nigel Dodds: I am sure that the Minister heard that and will accept that speedy action is necessary.
	The former chief electoral officer for Northern Ireland used to say repeatedly that if we wanted to ensure that people had the right to vote and were not deprived of it by fraudulent means, it would cost money. The House and the Government will have to ensure that that money is made available. There is nothing more precious than the right to vote, and nothing makes people angrier than turning up on election day and finding that their votes have been stolen from them. It is incumbent on us to ensure that whatever resources are necessary to enable the electoral office to operate efficiently are provided.
	I welcome the broad thrust of the Bill. We will give it a fair wind, but we hope that a number of points that have been raised will be addressed in Committee. The legislation may not be completed by the end of August or by September, when the next Northern Ireland elections will be held, if the Secretary of State is to be believedand, indeed, if the law is followed through and there is no fancy footwork in the electoral processbut we hope that it will be enacted at the earliest opportunity.

Kevin McNamara: I should first like to apologise to my hon. Friend the Minister, to the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) and to other hon. Members for the fact that I was not here when the debate started. As I explained in a letter to Mr. Speaker, I was asked some time ago to chair a meeting in Portcullis House on the working of the Human Rights Commissions in Northern Ireland and in the Republic of Ireland, and it was not an obligation that I could get out of. Consequently, I had not planned to seek to speak in this debate.
	My hon. Friends in the Social Democratic and Labour party have not been able to attend the debate because they are with the Prime Minister, as are the leaders of the Ulster Unionist party, trying to find a peaceful solution to the problems of Northern Ireland and specifically to address the four issues that are besetting the peace process. The points that I shall make are essentially those that they would have made if they were not with the Prime Minister, the Taoiseach and the leaders of the other pro-agreement parties.
	The SDLP has identified three main types of electoral fraud in Northern Ireland. The first is multiple registration and voting whereby voters are registered at various addressesperhaps their parents' and friends' addressesas well as at their own. Currently there is very little that can be done to identify or prevent that practice.
	Personation of electors, particularly of those who do not usually use their vote, is the second type of fraud. It is committed with the assistance of forged identification, and medical cards are often used as they are simple in design and carry no photograph. Today, we have heard one anecdote after another about how that type of fraud has been committed. The need very strongly to address that issue is widely recognised.
	The third type of fraud is the fraudulent application for postal and proxy votes. It, too, is often committed by using the names of non-voters or by using false registrations for uninhabited houses. However, the list of those in receipt of postal votes is and must remain available to the public. The date of issue of postal votes is also known. Consequently, people are able to go round and collect those postal votes and use them fraudulently.
	An equally important sub-category of fraud occurs in cases in which people have properly applied for a postal vote, or have been persuaded to apply for one, after which people visit their house and intimidate them or threaten them and take it from them. We know that that happens on both sides of the community divide.
	The worst thing that can possibly happen to a person is that someone take his vote from him and use it wrongly. That is stealing that person's identity, personality and most basic stake in democratic society. That is why we should take the matter very seriously regardless of where it occurs, whether in Northern Ireland or Great Britain. The right to vote is sacred to people and vital to their individuality and dignity. We must always treat seriously cases in which an attempt is made to remove someone's vote by fraud, threat or intimidation.
	The SDLP feels that Ministers have gone some way towards achieving proper prevention of some of the fraud. However, like other hon. Members who have spoken in this debate, SDLP Members feel that the measures do not go far enough and that other measures could have been introduced to deal with the problem. We have already heard exchanges on the possible benefits of smart cards, which may be introduced. However, certainly the most depressing feature of the Bill is that it does not contain a timetable on removing the right to use non-photographic evidence. We do not welcome the fact that some forms of identification that are subject to fraud will still be accepted. The Bill could, as an indication of the Government's intention, provide for regulation and statutory instruments to do away with non-positive means of identification.
	SDLP Members also believe that it would have been far better to include a requirement for voters to present a national insurance number, as each national insurance number is individual and distinct to every member of society. Everyone over 16 in Northern Ireland has a national insurance number. If those seeking to vote were required to provide their date of birth and national insurance number, it would be quite simple to use computers to check for multiple registrations and the fraudulent use of those numbers. The computer system would know how many national insurance numbers were extant in Northern Ireland at a particular time.

Dominic Grieve: I am very interested to hear the hon. Gentleman's comments on the subject, and we may hear more about it from the Minister. However, my understanding of the issue, is that, unfortunately, there are far more national insurance numbers floating around the United Kingdom than there are heads of population. My experience as prosecuting counsel in benefit fraud cases for the then Department of Social Security was certainly that numbers could be obtained with ease and that some individuals possessed enormous multiples of numbers. I therefore wonder whether national insurance numbers really provide the protection that the hon. Gentleman is seeking.

Kevin McNamara: Northern Ireland's population is much smaller than that of Great Britain and there are specific Northern Ireland national insurance numbers. They could therefore assist in creating a system to deal with the problem.

Martin Smyth: I appreciate the point that the hon. Gentleman is arguing. Even in Northern Ireland, however, it is amazing how people are able to obtain multiple national insurance numbers. One of my constituents was convicted of theft after manufacturing 25 national insurance numbers for 25 ghost customers.

Kevin McNamara: I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying. It is perhaps unfortunate that his constituent was discovered before he drew his old age pension as he would have had a reasonably large pension.
	As I said, SDLP Members believe that national insurance numbers could be used with computers as an effective means of quickly and effectively checking identities. They also believe that we have to have a timetable to stop using non-photographic identity.
	SDLP Members also believe that the Bill should contain other provisions. Although some other hon. Members may not agree with them, they believe that there should be a 100-metre limit on canvassing, posting and other party political activity around all polling stations, primarily to allay voters' anxieties and to reassure people that the polling station is a neutral zone. They believe that the withdrawal of partisan posters and active canvassing for 100 yards or so will help people to avoid the intimidation to which the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds) referred. They see that as useful in preventing electoral fraud.
	My SDLP colleagues believe that we should address the powers of the personnel involved with election-day procedures. They have given the example of one of the few instances in which a police officer can observe a crime being committed but be powerless to take action because he is in a difficult situation. If he proceeded to take action, it would probably lead to a considerable breach of the peace and, perhaps, the closure of the polling station because of a riot ensuing. My hon. Friends would like to see a cordon sanitaire and more powers to prevent crimes such as personation.

Dominic Grieve: What does the hon. Gentleman think about tellers? In Great Britain, parties put tellers into polling stations to note who has voted. Telling is what I might call almost a village fair occupation, with people having pleasant conversations and exchanging information. That is certainly the case in my constituency. If the restrictions that the hon. Gentleman proposes were to be introduced, that would prevent telling from taking place. That might be seen as an infringement of a legitimate right of people to inquire as to who is voting.

Kevin McNamara: As I understand from my visits to polling stations in Northern Ireland, telling agents are inside, rather than outside, the stations. Some presiding officers in the UK insist that the tellers are outside the polling station and, in my constituency, tellers have not been allowed in when the weather has been inclement. The situation is somewhat different in Northern Ireland.
	My SDLP colleagues would like the Bill to contain provisions to examine the training and resources given to the electoral officer to ensure that the reforms, when passed by this House, can be implemented quickly and efficiently. It is one thing to vote for a scheme, and another to provide the money and training to enable it to take place. The sooner that that is done, the sooner many of the Government's wishes can be carried through.
	My hon. Friends in the SDLP disagree to a limited extent with some of the comments made by members of the DUP concerning multiple constituency representation and proportional representation. My hon. Friends find it anomalous that, of all the elections in Northern Ireland, it is only the election for the UK Parliament that remains first past the post. They believe that there would be far fairer representation under multiple constituency representationfairer for all the factions present in Northern Ireland.
	The SDLP also believes that if such a system of proportional representation were introduced, much of the impetus that is given to some organisations to resort to illegal practices would be gone because they would get fair representation. That would overcome the problem to which the hon. Member for Belfast, North referred when he said that a fraction of fraudulent votes could swing a seat one way or the other. SDLP Members believe that multiple representation within Westminster elections would work the other way from that outlined by the hon. Member for Belfast, North.

Ian Paisley: The hon. Gentleman might argue on behalf of his friends in the SDLP about how many seats the party would win under proportional representation. However, proportional representation is used throughout Northern Ireland for the European elections and it makes no difference whatever. We were told that proportional representation might lead to the election of Sinn Fein or the SDLP, but it was the DUP which topped the polls, with the Ulster Unionists and the representative of the nationalists. If that was the case then, I do not know how the SDLP can say so confidently that things would fall in their favour if proportional representation were used for Westminster elections.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) replies, I should point out that I do not want this to develop into a debate about proportional representation.

Kevin McNamara: Indeed, but the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) has made a big error. The SDLP was arguing not that proportional representation would be for its benefit but that it would be for the benefit of the people of Northern Ireland. The real problem for the hon. Gentleman is that, much though he represents his party, he does not represent the whole of Northern Ireland. [Hon. Members: Nor does the SDLP.] Nor does the SDLP; nor does the DUP, the UUP, the PUP or any other acronym one can come up with.
	The purpose of the Billto get rid of electoral fraudshould unite all parties in this House. The Bill is important and I hope that the Government take on board proposals from all parts of the House that show a unanimity of view that they can go further. Even if the Government feel that they cannot move as many would wish, they could at least include within the Bill a provision to introduce changes without the need to come back to this House in future with primary legislation.

Martin Smyth: The hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) reminded me of a situation years ago, when I was performing a wedding. The bridegroom had a difficulty with his speech and asked me to reply on behalf of the bride, so I was speaking on behalf of the bride, just as the hon. Gentleman was speaking on behalf of the SDLP.
	The points made by the hon. Gentleman were useful and helpful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I am glad that you brought him back to the centre of the debate, which is how to deal with electoral fraud. I appreciated the Minister's kind words, but I have a sense of revulsion when I listen to people in this House talking as if there were no electoral fraud in Great Britain and it were normal in Northern Ireland. We are beginning to realise that the people of England, Wales and Scotland are no better than the people of Northern Ireland and that electoral fraud is practised elsewhere, including in Lib-Lab deals in some councils.
	I regret that the Bill does not apply to the United Kingdom as a whole because, according to European legislation, the same franchise and standards should be applicable throughout the UK. When the Government argue about the seamless robe of government, it would be worthwhile asking for the Bill to apply throughout the UK.
	I wish to refer to disability. I welcome the improvements that have been made in terms of access to polling stations. However, it is not enough for the electoral office and the Government in Northern Ireland to provide access to a school via the outside steps when nothing can be done inside, as it is the responsibility of the Education Department or the Education and Library Board. It is time that schools were so equipped that people with disabilities could have a normal education and then grow up to vote in those schools without any hindrances.
	I remember an earlier debate when the Government of the day introduced legislation to try to deal with electoral fraud in Northern Ireland. At the end of that debate, Enoch Powell rose in his place to draw the Speaker's attention to the fact that the Minister handling the debate had voted in both Lobbies, to show how easy it was to have multiple votes. We live in a fascinating world. The tragedy was that that Government did not listen to our arguments on that occasion, which is why we have to re-examine the question.
	I plead with the Minister to bear in mind in Committee the points of detail that we have made today. All of us would accept the principle of the Bill, but the details of how we apply that principle are important. In proceedings on the earlier legislation, it was even suggested that a rent book would be an acceptable identity document, until we advised the civil servants and Ministers concerned that there were people in Belfast who would be glad to give their rent book to anybody. Civil servants do a remarkably good job, but sometimes streetwise people are needed to guide Ministers and inject some realism into the proceedings.
	There is a weakness in the system of rolling registration and postal voting. The new chief electoral officer for Northern Ireland, Mr. Stanley, said that he could not guarantee the integrity of the election because he was dependent on the Post Office delivering the forms correctly. Many people in the last election in Northern Ireland did not get a postal vote even though they had applied in good time. In some cases in my area, the form was sent by return from the electoral office, but was postmarked five days later. Votes do not go missing through fraud alone.
	I plead with the Government to listen to us. Sometimes Northern Ireland Members have not been listened to because of the attitude that mother or auntie knows best. It was obvious today that hon. Members did not know what they had inflicted on Northern Ireland in relation to voting patterns. I plead with them to listen to the plea made by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson): until we get proper smart cards, let pensioner IDs be acceptable. It would not be difficult in this new legislation to add them to the list of acceptable documents.
	The law says that both parts of a driving licence are needed, but they are not. We should change the law to say that the plastic part is acceptable on its own. The law also says that the driving licence or passport must be current. Some people did not send their driving licence away to be renewed because they wanted it as an ID, but were then told that it was not acceptable as it was not current, even though their faces and even addresses had not changed.
	Returning officers do a magnificent job by and large, but they stick strictly to the law. There was an outlandish case in Lagan Valley. A man and wife went to vote. The man had both parts of his driving licence with him, but the lady, like many another, had brought the wrong handbag and discovered that her driving licence was not in it. She was not allowed to vote. The husband said, But surely a man can recognise his own wife and vouch for her identity. The electoral officer said no, that was not the law. Finally, in exasperation, the woman said, Sure you know who I am. You had supper in our house last night.
	Now it seems that we are in for a gay old time, as human rights legislation will give people a right to sue if they brought identification that they thought was acceptable but were denied the right to vote because of a strict application of the law. That is how barristers make a livingthey keep arguing over technicalities. The Government may have some wonderful days ahead. I plead for the removal of some of the strict legalistic interpretation by removing the requirement for passports and driving licences to be current and for the two parts of the licence to be produced.
	I happen to believe in the smart card. I believe that it would be better to have a multipurpose smart card. It could be a proper medical card, carrying information about medical problems requiring particular care. The cards would certainly be useful as ID in electionsNorthern Ireland is the most elected place going, and people are dizzy with going backwards and forwards to votebut we are all human, and is there anyone here today who has not put something in a safe place and then forgotten where they left it? If we tie ourselves down to the one smart card for voting, we may face genuine difficulties with people who cannot remember where they left it.
	We need to consider the matter not with the view of the civil libertarians who are against anything that might infringe their liberties, no matter who might become a victim whose vote might be stolen, or whether a presiding officer is browbeaten. We are here to provide good legislation for the conduct of our elections in Northern Ireland, and I plead with the Minister to be a little more flexible on the detail, to get the best results for us all.

Dominic Grieve: This has been a fascinating and highly educational debate. I shall listen to the Minister with great interest when he responds on matters such as the extent of the franchise in Northern Ireland for local government elections. It may be that he and I will have learned something this evening of which we were not previously aware.
	In my earlier intervention, I pointed out that in local government elections in Great Britain, it is possible to vote in two places on the same day. The Minister seemed to assume that that was also possible in Northern Ireland, so this evening's opportunity to look into such matters has been very educational.
	I also join other hon. Members in welcoming the Minister to his Front-Bench post, and to this debate. I know from experience his long-standing interest in Northern Ireland and its problems, so it is a special pleasure to see him holding office as a Northern Ireland Minister.
	The debate has been conducted on the important premise that electoral fraud must be eliminated. Some of the manifestations of fraud are humorous and have been the subject for comedy for many years, but fraud is a serious matter. We have heard much about paramilitary groups in Northern Ireland obtaining power by means of the Armalite and the ballot box at the same time. The problem is even worse when we realise that the system being employed is that of the Armalite and the stuffed ballot box.
	Like the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth), I believe that there is ample evidence that the degree of personation and fraud in elections on the mainland of Great Britain is a growing problem. I suspect that the House will have to tackle that problem in the near future, and I shall be interested to discover what the Electoral Commission has to say about the distribution of postal votes at the last general election. The enormous rise in their use in certain locations may suggest that many people are legitimately taking advantage of a right that they have been givenbut a more sinister interpretation may be appropriate.
	It is clear that the House is united in its view that electoral fraud is a serious matter, and that it must be stopped. Our aim must be to ensure as far as possible that one person has one vote, and that people who vote do so legitimately.
	The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) said that he thought that that legitimacy would be in everyone's interest. I wish that that were true, but my impression of the development of politics in Northern Ireland over the past 20 years is that certain parties there do not seem to agree. They appear to have reaped the advantages of participation in the democratic process despite clear evidence that they have abused the system. Moreover, they do not seem to have experienced many downsides as a result.

Lembit �pik: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, and as recently as in the 2001 general election, the parties to which he refers may have derived genuine advantage from playing the system. However, I am sure that mainland voters would not take kindly to the discovery that a major party on the mainland had broken the democratic franchise. Further normalisation in Northern Ireland could mean that those who cheat the system there would suffer the same fate.

Dominic Grieve: I certainly hope so. If the Bill leads to the revelation that more personation is taking place

Lembit �pik: Does the hon. Gentleman mean less personation?

Dominic Grieve: No. I mean that the Bill may lead to more personation being detected, and as a result public opinion may come to oppose the practice. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree with the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), who said that there was something strange about the fact that different constituencies in Northern Ireland register absent voters in different ways. For example, one wonders where the many absent voters who are registered in Fermanagh and South Tyrone and in West Tyrone come from.
	I turn now to some specific points arising from the debate. I do not want to take up too much of the House's time, so I hope that I shall be forgiven if I do not comment on all the speeches that have been made.
	The hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) proposed the use of national insurance numbers to prevent fraud. That possibility is not provided for in the Bill, but I shall risk repeating myself by pointing out that the usefulness of national insurance numbers for that purpose would be very limited. The Minister mentioned the matter in passing in his opening speech, and I should be interested to hear more.
	I do not want my remarks to become too anecdotal, but from my experience of prosecuting people for benefit fraud it became apparent to me that national insurance numbers were two a penny. They are readily obtainable by a variety of means, and anyone who lays hands on a benefit book containing a national insurance number can start exploiting that number. I prosecuted one case in which paramilitary groups were funding themselves through the United Kingdom taxpayer. They had obtained large quantities of new benefit books, and those books carried national insurance numbers. I therefore have serious doubts about the possibility of using national insurance numbers to curtail electoral fraud.
	Moreover, as the Minister noted, people could get muddled by a system that depended on national insurance numbers. Most people do not know their number and would be unable to state it to an electoral officer if they did not have it written down.
	Another proposal was that signatures could be used as proof of identity. I did not attend the meetings of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, so there may be something about that proposal that I have missed. After all, banks require us to sign cheques, and bank staff make a visual comparison between the signature on the cheque and the specimen signature on the bank card. However, on many occasions it has been doubted that my signature on a cheque is the same as the signature on my card.
	The signature is a very old fashioned means of identification, and I wonder how accurate it can be. That is not to say that the Bill is wrong in requiring signatures. I have no difficulty with that, but the hon. Member for Belfast, South suggested that signatures could be used more widely, and I am not sure that that would be as useful as he believes.
	The Minister may say that the digital methods that have been floated before the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee are now so accurate that a signature's particular characteristics can be detected. None the less, even if similarities can be determined between the very clear example that I might put on a bank card and the scrawl that appears when I sign a document at a funny angle, I am not sure that signatures would be very effective in the role that has been proposed.
	That brings us to the nub of the debate, and to the key matters that must be grappled with. One of the key aspects of the Bill is whether we are moving towards smart cards for voting. Clearly, the provision in the Bill for such cards should be an exceptionally powerful deterrent against fraud.
	One subject that we have to debate, and frequently do, is reconciling the liberty of the individual, and the tradition of turning our backs on any form of identification card, with the growing pressure for the use of such cards in a wide variety of situations. I do not want to become involved in too wide a discussion this evening, but voting is undoubtedly a right. As the hon. Member for North Down said, it is a right enshrined under the Human Rights Act 1998. At the same time, it is also a privilege. I would not expect to be allowed to vote if there were some doubt as to my identity.
	In those circumstances, we are probably moving inexorably, not only in Northern Ireland but in mainland United Kingdom, towards some sort of smart card identificationI hope that it will not be an identity card, with all the connotations that that hasfor situations in which one's identity has to be properly established, and voting is one of those.
	I hope that the Minister will not take it amiss when I say that I worry a little about the two-tier nature of the system that seems to be creeping in under this legislation. I appreciate the conservatism of the Government on this matter and have no dispute about the principles that underlie it. In an effort to provide a number of ways in which people can identify themselves when they go to the polling station, the Minister is leaving open the possibility that some people will identify themselves with those cards and others will use other methods of identification. It has been pointed out that those at the more deprived end of society may be forced to have the smart cards, as they do not use the other forms of identification. That worries me because such people may feel that a burden and a responsibility are being placed on them, and they will have the legitimate complaint that others are using forms of identification that may be much less accurate. I hope that the Minister will keep that aspect of the matter under review.
	Furthermore, if we are moving progressively towards more accurate forms of identification, and as there is widespread agreement in the House on the direction in which we should be going, it is surprisingthe hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) picked this upthat we are not providing in the Bill for the removal by statutory instrument of certain forms of identification, when they have passed their sell-by date and the new systems have come into operation.
	As the Minister will know, I do not usually favour legislation by statutory instrument. Indeed, I have on occasionprobably, indeed, on occasions too numerous to mentionspoken out against it. None the less, this is one area in which we ought to be capable of using the provisions of statutory instruments creatively, without resorting to subsequent complex debates in the Chamber, which take up time. It is precisely because they take time that such matters do not come before the House. To be kind to the Government, I am prepared to accept that one reason why we have waited so long for this Bill is that, notwithstanding the report of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, there has not been Government time for it.
	The one area that will merit careful consideration in Committee is whether we can streamline and move towards a simplified smart card system. I appreciate that that will not be done overnight, but if Northern Ireland voting is carried out entirely by smart card at the end of the process, our civil liberties will not have been infringed. They certainly will not have been half as infringed as they are by the present system, under which people may legitimately doubt whether the outcome of a particular election in a particular constituency really reflects the principle of one person, one vote.
	I do not wish to take any more time. As the Minister knows, the Opposition welcome the measure and will not seek to divide the House. We appreciate what the Government are doing, and they have our support. I hope that the Minister will take on board the matters that we have raised, and also that in his reply he will be able to touch on the anxieties raised by hon. Members on both sides of the House so as to ensure, in due course, that fraud is prevented and Northern Ireland has a much better system.

Des Browne: With the leave of the House, I will reply to this Second Reading debate. I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss electoral fraud in Northern Ireland and for the many well informed contributions. Some of them were better informed than I was, but I will return to that.
	In the words of the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth), I am also grateful to those hon. Members who shared their street wisdom with me. I assure them that it will inform debates in Committee. In any event, I do not think that I am known as someone who is far removed from street wisdom.
	The problems of electoral abuse in Northern Ireland have repeatedly exercised Governments. The matter has been raised by the chief electoral officer for Northern Ireland and his staff, by party officials across the community and by the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs and other committees. Together with those bodies, the Government have examined the problem and the possible solutions with great thoroughness. The Bill makes clear our commitment to finding proposals that will really work, while not imposing unreasonable burdens on the electorate, the chief electoral officer and his staff or the political parties.
	I take this opportunity to express the Government's appreciation of the work done by the chief electoral officer and his staff and their dedication in ensuring that elections in Northern Ireland are carried out properly in what we all acknowledge are sometimes difficult circumstances.
	The measures must strike a balance between limiting the opportunity for abuse and putting obstacles in the path of genuine voters. I will endeavour to answer as many questions as I can in the time given and I undertake to write to any hon. Members whose questions I do not answer.
	I welcome the support for the measure from both sides of the House, even though it is qualified in some instances. I am grateful to the official Opposition, especially the hon. Members for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) and for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), for their support. The hon. Member for Solihull and other hon. Members raised an issue that I endeavoured to address in my opening speech: the timing of the legislation and the reason that it has taken so long for it to appear. I do not propose to repeat myself, but I point out in defence of the Government that the time taken to consider and agree workable proposals was not entirely wasted and that other things were done.
	I remind the House that the following new measures are already in place. We now have rolling registration. The chief electoral officer has a statutory right to inspect the records kept by a number of public authorities, some of which I identified. Absent vote applications are being dealt with locally, which has improved their processing. The electoral office has been provided with more funding for additional staff and with new IT systems to facilitate changes. I shall return to that point.
	It has always been our intention that the provisions of the Bill would be in place for the Assembly elections scheduled for May 2003. The hon. Members for North Down (Lady Hermon), for Solihull and for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) asked about multiple registration. For some Members, the discussion of that point may have been the most interesting part of the debate. It appears to have generated a request from the hon. Member for Beaconsfield that I enlighten the House as to precisely what the franchise is.
	If this is the worst mistake that I make as a Minister, it will not be the worst ever made by one, but I do not think that the hon. Member for Belfast, East is correct. Unfortunately, the legal advice available to me at the moment is not precise enough for me to be able to check that point and I do not have access to the documentation, so I shall write to him to set out the position. I shall clearly set out what we propose. On that basis, we can hold an informed debate on multiple registration in the Standing Committee.

John Taylor: I am grateful to the Minister, not least for his great candour, for which he is to be commended. However, even going along with the analysis part of the way, I would bet far more money than I would care to lose that the position in England is that one may vote only once in a parliamentary election and only once in a European election even if one is multiply registered, and that it is an offence to vote more than once for Westminster or Europe. However, if one is twice registered for local government purposes, with two bona fide residences, one may vote twice in those circumstances. That is my understanding.

Des Browne: Given my track record on the subject, I undertake to write to the hon. Gentleman when I have checked whether his contribution is accurate. Several hon. Members commented on my interest in Northern Ireland and on my contribution to Northern Ireland matters when I was a Back Bencher in the previous Parliament. It is true that I have some knowledge of Northern Ireland affairs, but today's debate has taught me what I have already told all my officials: a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. I tell them that they should remember that although I know some things, they should tell me regularly when I do not know.

Martin Smyth: When the Minister investigates local government voting will he check whether in Northern Ireland one is even entitled to register at two distinct places? My understanding is that as it is not always possible to guarantee that people do not register twice, the offence occurs when people vote twice. In Northern Ireland, it is my understanding that one can register only in one place at one time.

Des Browne: I am not in the mood to bow to anybody's wisdom at the moment, so I shall undertake to check all those matters. The hon. Members who raised them will be written to with a clear exposition of the legal situation. That will inform the debate in Committee.
	The hon. Member for Solihull and my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) referred to the pressure put on electoral officers by the last-minute presentation of large numbers of absent vote applications. Measures have already been taken to improve the system for absent vote applications. They are now processed at local electoral offices instead of by the chief electoral officer as was the case when the Select Committee examined the issue.
	Absent vote applications are already checked for authenticity and the electoral office devotes much of its resources into clearing the large number of such applications that arrive at the last minute. To be able to compare the signature on the application with the one on the database should assist in the quick identification of suspect applications, despite the reservations expressed by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield. However, the eventual introduction of automated absent vote processing will also help in making efficient use of resources.
	The hon. Members for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) and for Solihull, among others, asked why we do not move over to smart-card technology right now. As we said in the White Paper, the ultimate aim is for every voter to be issued with an electoral smart card bearing a unique identifier. I have already told the House that that is an aspiration for the future. I have been accused of setting my ambitions too low in that respect, but the fact is that the technology currently available is still young.
	As I said in my opening speech, I am concerned that we should not use the electoral system to develop the technology. Such a comprehensive scheme would need to be wholly secure before it could be introduced in such a sensitive and important matter as electoral administration. The cost of introducing and maintaining such a system would be great. In the light of the American experience in Florida, it is worth noting that technology must not be used for the benefit of the electoral office if it is to the cost of the electorate. Our view is that we would be foolish to rush into a radical new scheme before being confident of the practicalities.

Lembit �pik: I have been holding back congratulating the Minister on his new post until I found out how he performed. Having seen how he has performed, I have unbridled admiration for his honest and humble presentation so far. Does he accept that we have two options: a smart card, which could help us to police the voting process; or a dumb card, which could easily be replicated? Does he accept that in the specific case of Northern Ireland, although the cost per head may be high, the absolute cost will be low because we are not dealing with very many people? Does he also accept that the overwhelming view on both sides of the House and among all parties is that we should trust what the financial industry has already tested for us: the smart-card technology, which must surely be effective if the financial industry trusts it?

Des Browne: As usual, I am grateful for all compliments or observations to my credit, but hon. Members will no doubt move well away from making them after this maiden appearance at the Dispatch Box. Perhaps I should make this speech last as long as possible and enjoy it while I can.
	I repeat that the contribution of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire has been helpful, as have all the contributions; they will inform the Bill's progress. Cost is not the reason why we do not propose to adopt the smart-card technology now. In the meantime, we do not propose to introduce a dumb card; we shall use the best card available to us. We are not introducing the smart card now because we are not satisfied that the biometric technology that underpins it is as yet mature enough to be used at elections.

Harry Barnes: The House should accept the Minister's arguments for not introducing the smart card, which everyone wants in the end, but if the electoral identity card is the best available, why cannot it be universal, as it would then feed into the smart-card provisions later? If everyone had an electoral identity card, we would move down the road towards the smart card.

Des Browne: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for taking us forward; I had intended to address what has been described as the introduction of a two-tier system, involving photographic identity cards for elections and driving licences and passports otherwise. I repeat that a smart card for everyone remains an ultimate goal, but the technological difficulties have to be resolved first.
	I believe that no stigma is attached to receiving an electoral ID card. Indeed, for many people, it would be far better than having to show their benefit books as a method of identification. The ID card will be freely and widely available to those who require it. It represents the quickest way to create a situation in which we can remove the medical card and the other non-photographic ID cards from use. Although I constantly caution that we must move steadily and that we must take the parties and the electorate with us, we have to take action as quickly as is reasonable. If introducing the ID card, as a stepping stone towards the smart card, allows us to act more quickly, that is what we should do, and it is what we will do. That is why we shall take advantage of the fact that other people can use forms of identification, such as the driving licence with a photograph and passports, that cannot easily be forged.
	The hon. Member for Belfast, East suggested using the travelcards that, I understand, will shortly be issued to all people in Northern Ireland over the age of 65. [Hon. Members: Over 60.] I may be wrong; it may be 60. In any event, we will not accept a travel pass because such a document is not designed to high enough a security specification for it to be a reliable identifier for electoral purposes. However, he made the sensible suggestion that we should take advantage of the fact that the cards are being issued to piggy-back on them to encourage people to apply for electoral identity cards. Although following that sensible suggestion will require discussion with the devolved authorities, I will explore it further and examine whether it can be pursued.
	Several hon. Members sensibly raised the issue of the two parts of the driving licence. In my evolving response to interventions on my opening speech, I suggested that we would consider the possibility of treating that part of the driving licence with a photograph as sufficient for identification purposes. There may be downsides to consider and work through. For example, driving licences can be stolen. However, it is reasonable to suggest that the part with the photograph will not be used by anyone who does not look like the person on the photograph. Therefore, that problem may not be as big as was first thought. I undertake to consider the issue.

Peter Robinson: I welcome the Minister's willingness to reconsider the issue of driving licences.
	On the senior citizens bus pass, the Minister cannot argue that the design does not suit. The only design that he can be aware of is the design of the present concessionary pass, and that is to be changed for a free fares bus pass. The design work has not been done yet, so the pass could incorporate whatever mechanisms he requires for it to be used for electoral identification purposes.

Des Browne: I shall consider the hon. Gentleman's suggestion. However, it is not a question of the design or content of the card, but one of its security specifications and whether it can be produced fraudulently. That is one of the main concerns with the current documents used for identification purposes.

Kevin McNamara: Will my hon. Friend the Minister respond to the point made from both sides of the House that the Bill does not contain provision for getting rid of non-photographic identification documents? To achieve change in that regard, we shall require further primary legislation. If we could deal with that problem by regulation, we could get rid of it when it is opportune to do so.

Des Browne: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. I was intending to come to it and, if he bears with me, I shall work through some of the issues that have been raised and attempt to conclude the debate within a reasonable time.
	My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire welcomed the research that is taking place into the electoral system in Northern Ireland and he asked for details on it. The preliminary results will be available by August and the final report is due in September, which is quite soon. The research has been commissioned to investigate all aspects of operations at recent elections and includes possible electoral malpractice. It is designed to investigate every stage of the electoral process and will involve the general public, presiding officers and counting staff. Anecdotal evidence suggests that electoral abuse is widespread in Northern Ireland. We hope that the research will better inform us of the extent of abuse and the form that it takes so that we can tackle the problem.
	My hon. Friend also referred to signatures. We could ask for voters' signatures at the polling station, but we must implement only essential measures that do not create unnecessary barriers. We believe that the collection of a person's date of birth and signature on registration and the use of the date of birth and photographic identification at the polling station are sufficient. We have no intention of putting more barriers in front of voters than are necessary to tackle the problem.
	The support of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire is also welcome. I am acutely aware of the balance that is necessary when we legislate to place restrictions on the electoral process. His speech was a model of how to walk that tightrope; he argued for immediate implementation of a smart card and then exposed the dangers of the creeping introduction of identification cards.
	The hon. Gentleman asked whether we will redesign the form for absent vote applications. We shall discuss how best to improve it with the chief electoral officer, including the use of bar coding and serial numbers on forms, which we believe are valuable. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the need to improve the register's accuracy and suggested that that should be a priority. The Northern Ireland register is 94 per cent. accurate, which is high, as he acknowledged. Rolling registration, the chief electoral officer's powers to examine other databases and improved information technology in the electoral office will enhance that further.
	The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire and my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) asked why we do not legislate to remove the medical card and other non-photographic forms of identification from the list of specified documents. It is clear that we will need to give people a reasonable amount time to obtain a specified form of photographic identification, such as electoral ID, and to get used to using it. We cannot disfranchise voters in our haste to legislate.
	We have always intended to get the measures in place in time for the scheduled Assembly elections in 2003 and we propose to remove the non-photographic ID from the list of specified documents by subordinate legislation when we are able to.

Lembit �pik: Will the Minister at least commit the Government to listening sincerely to our concerns when we raise them in Committee where it will be more appropriate to cover them in detail?

Des Browne: That is implicit in my remarks. Today's debate will inform discussions in Committee where we will be able to consider the issues raised.
	I am grateful to the hon. Member for North Down for reminding me of the human rights implications of electoral law. I expected her to do that and was not disappointed. She raised serious concerns that will engage us in Committee. I am sure that she will forgive me for not responding to them now, but they will be addressed.
	The hon. Member for Belfast, East made a characteristically analytical speech. He was correct to remind me of my contribution to the Select Committee's work. He and other hon. Members mentioned the important issue of disabled access to polling stations. I am acutely aware of the need for such access, and I am proud of my constituency, which has complete access for disabled persons to all polling stations. I am sure that I am not alone in that. I take very seriously the issue of access for all to polling places.
	I know that the chief electoral officer is looking carefully at locations and endeavouring to ensure that there is access for all. Hon. Members mentioned some of the constraints, such as the age of buildings. Many old school buildings, in particular, are inaccessible. I know that the chief electoral officer takes very seriously his obligations to ensure equality of access, and I hope, during my term as Minister, to make significant progress on that.
	The hon. Member for Belfast, East emphasised the need for computer systems. The replacement of the IT system at the electoral office is already under way. The new system will come into effect in July 2002 and will have the capacity to cope with changes to the electoral system envisaged by the Bill.
	Although we live in a democratic society, it is unlikely that we will ever be able to eradicate electoral fraud, but these proposals will make fundamental changes and give the chief electoral officer significant additional powers to combat fraud. Personation at the polling station will be made much more difficult by the requirement for all voters to provide a specified form of photographic identification. The chief electoral officer will be able to collect the signature and date of birth of every elector in Northern Ireland, and that will facilitate the process of checking absent vote applications and verifying identity at the polling station.
	The measures will tackle electoral abuse effectively without disadvantaging honest voters. We intend to implement them as soon as is practicable, but we will take all necessary steps to ensure that no one is disfranchised because of them. The Government alone cannot eradicate electoral fraud. We must continue to work in partnership with the electoral office, the police and political parties to tackle electoral fraud in all its forms. I ask hon. Members who are opposed to electoral fraud, and who want to protect the democratic exercise of the franchise, to take the appropriate action by supporting the Bill.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read a Second time.

ELECTORAL FRAUD (NORTHERN IRELAND) BILL (PROGRAMME)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Order [28 June],
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Bill:

Committal

1. The Bill shall be committed to a Standing Committee.

Programming of proceedings

2. All proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further message from the Lords) shall be programmed.

Proceedings in Standing Committee

3.(1) Proceedings in the Standing Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 18th October 2001.
	(2) The Standing Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.

Consideration and Third Reading

4.(1) Proceedings on consideration and Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock on the day on which those proceedings are commenced or, if that day is a Thursday, at Seven o'clock on that day.
	(2) Sessional Order B (programming committees) made by the House on 28th June 2001 shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading.[Mr. Stringer.]
	The House divided: Ayes 281, Noes 90.

Question accordingly agreed to.

ELECTORAL FRAUD (NORTHERN IRELAND) BILL [MONEY]

Queen's recommendation having been signified
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a),
	That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other enactment.[Mr. Stringer.]
	Question agreed to.

Special Educational Needs

Stephen Timms: I beg to move,
	That the draft Special Educational Needs Code of Practice, which was laid before this House on 20th June, be approved.
	The draft code of practice is designed to replace the current code of practice on the identification and assessment of educational needs, which was introduced in September 1994. The code of practice puts flesh on the provisions of part IV of the Education Act 1996, as amended by the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001. The intention to revise the code was signalled in the Green Paper Excellence for all Children: Meeting Special Educational Needs, which was published in 1997. The draft reflects the concerns expressed in the Green Paper and subsequent developments, especially under the new Act.
	Regulations made under the 1996 Act and laid before Parliament on 19 June provide the detail of the statutory requirements for assessments, statements and reviews of statements of special educational needs in England. They will replace the 1994 regulations. Separate regulations, which were laid on the same day, set out information that local authorities must provide about their arrangements for special educational needs. Amendment regulations were laid on 10 July to ensure that the six-week time limit within which LEAs must respond to a parental request for an assessment also applies to requests for assessments by schools and other responsible bodies.

Phil Willis: I thank the Minister for giving way so early. Given the Government's intention to bring in private sector companies to run many schools and local authorities, would a private sector company be regarded as one of the other responsible bodies?

Stephen Timms: The school will be regarded as the body, with the local education authority. If some partnership involving the private sector were to affect the LEA, the provisions would apply as to an LEA in any other circumstances. I do not think that the involvement that the hon. Gentleman has in mind would change either the code or the regulatory position.

Phil Willis: What would happen if a private company such as Nord Anglia were to take over the running of a school or group of schools? As a private sector company that is trading on the stock market, would it be regarded as a responsible body?

Stephen Timms: The code of practice would apply to the school and local education authority in precisely the same way. The duties set out in the 1996 Act, the regulations and the code of practice requirements would have to be met in the normal way. I do not think that the situation that the hon. Gentleman envisages would change that. I hope that I have managed to make that point clear.
	Section 314 of the Education Act 1996 provides for the Secretary of State to revise the code of practice from time to time, and where she proposes to do so, to consult upon a draft, consider any representations made and modify that draft as she sees fit. The Secretary of State, in those circumstances, must bring a revised draft to Parliament for approval under the affirmative procedure, which is what we are doing.
	The current code of practice has undoubtedly done much to improve the identification and assessment of special educational needs. Ofsted reports on the implementation of the code of practice have shown that it has helped schools considerably in identifying children with special educational needs and matching appropriate provision to their needs.

Bob Blizzard: A number of my constituents have taken a close interest in the development of the new code. That interest is borne out of battles that they have had with the local education authority, past and present, over the provision of special needs for their children. When the parents have won, the battles have shown them to be right.
	The current code provides that
	a statement should normally be specific, detailed and quantified
	I stress quantified
	in terms, for example, of hours of ancillary or specialist teaching support.
	During the development of the new code, Ministers at various times have said that provision should be quantified as appropriate, or have said that the new code will advise LEAs that there may often be a need for statements to say how much help a child should need. Will my hon. Friend take the opportunity to clarify that in the new code LEAs should normally be expected to quantify special educational provision in statements of special need?

Stephen Timms: Many people have been following the debate closely and I know that they have been in touch with their Members about it. I know also that my hon. Friend has taken a close interest in the matter.
	The phrase that appears in the draft code is quantified as necessary. I shall set out the thinking behind that, and my hon. Friend may want to come back to me on the important point that he has raised.
	The network of special educational needs regional partnerships, which my Department is supporting, adds an important new dimension to the SEN framework by encouraging collaborative working and sharing of good practice among schools, parents, local education and health services and voluntary agencies.
	The draft code of practice is about removing barriers to participation and learning and raising the attainment of all children. Providing effective support for children with special educational needs is an essential feature of an effective school. In some instances, children with special educational needs may not be seen as a great catch by some schools. We need to maintain our focus on high expectations and high standards. At the same time, we must find ways of celebrating the impressive achievements of schools which succeed with pupils who have special educational needs, of which there are many. The work that we are doing on value-added performance tables can play an important role.

Mike Hancock: Before the Minister departs too far from his answer to the hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard), I shall ask him about quantifying where necessary. It is vital to understand that for parents who have real concerns, a statement is no good unless accompanying it is a properly signed up and agreed quantity of special care or special education that will go with it as support. If the Minister is to leave the provision as vague as quantifying where necessary, the code will be seen as not being worth the paper on which it is written. The issue needs to be probed and clearer answers should be given.

Stephen Timms: I intend to devote some time to the issue in recognition of its importance and the fact that many people have raised concerns about it. In a few minutes, I shall give the matter ample attention.
	I want to set out some of the background to our thinking on the new draft code of practice. It places greater emphasisthis has been widely welcomedon early identification of children's special educational needs, including a new chapter on the early years. We are supporting that greater emphasis through the 25 million that we are making available over the next three years to help LEAs and their early years development and child care partnerships to improve local provision for young children with SEN, and through the multi-agency working party that we are setting up to consider the needs of children under two with SEN and disabilities and the needs of their families. That will help us to produce guidance for health and education practitioners on early identification and help for those children.
	Early identification is not just relevant to the early years. Children can have special educational needs at different stages of their school career. We have therefore developed the guidance in the draft code of practice on school-based intervention to focus less on procedures and more on improving teaching and learning. We have given proper recognition to the role that class and subject teachers play in identifying children's SEN and in tailoring their approaches to address those needs. We have reduced the number of school-based elements from three to two and cut the paperwork on individual education plans to free up time for teachers to concentrate on helping children to learn.

Jeremy Corbyn: Does my hon. Friend accept that there is still the enormous problem of schools, parents and medical practitioners not recognising conditions such as dyslexia? The children often develop all kinds of behavioural and other problems because it is not recognised. It becomes expensive for everyone later. There is little incentive for a school seriously to assist with identifying dyslexia. Often, it is expensive for the school. That worsens the problem, rather than mitigating against it.

Stephen Timms: My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is in response to concerns of that sort that there is the new focus on early identification in the new draft code. We hope that that will help to deal with precisely that sort of difficulty.
	The role of education and other professionals is central to the SEN framework, but the child has a unique and important perspective to offer on his or her own needs, so the draft code places the voice of the child at the heart of the provision. There is a new chapter on pupil participation, which carries an expectation that schools and LEAs will seek and take account of the views and wishes of children with SEN throughout their school lives.
	Partnership with parents is given fresh impetus with the guidance in the draft code on the new duties on LEAs under the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001 to provide parent partnership services and a means of resolving disagreements between parents, the LEA and schools. The draft code makes it clear that those services in no way affect the rights of parents to appeal to the SEN tribunal.
	The key principles of the new statutory framework for inclusion introduced by the 2001 Act are also set out in the draft code of practice. Inclusion can improve the education experience of all childrenthose with special educational needs and disabilities and their peers. It helps children to recognise that they are good at different things.

Chris Grayling: The Minister is talking about inclusion, but does he recognise that many parents who have children with special educational needs feel that a mainstream school is not the right environment for their children? Many in my constituency have talked to me about the particular problems that their children face. They feel that their education is being held back by their presence in mainstream schools. Indeed, I have been the governor of a first school where an entire class suffered because of the problems faced by one child, who should not have been in a mainstream school. Does he therefore recognise that, although in some senses

Mr. Speaker: Order. I know that the hon. Gentleman is a new Member and I try to do my best, but his intervention is far too long. I shall allow the Minister to reply to the point that he has raised.

Stephen Timms: The key thing is that the needs of the child be met in the best way for that child. That is the principle that underpins the measure. That is what we are taking forward with the new draft code of practice.
	When we consulted on changes to the current code of practice, teachers and local education authorities said that it was too bureaucratic and did not focus enough on teaching and learning. We have addressed those concerns in the draft code. We consulted extensively. We sent out more than 30,000 copies of the consultation draft of the revised code between July and October 2000, and received more than 1,000 responses from a wide range of organisations and individuals. Officials took part in many conferences and meetings to listen to people's views. Most favoured the main changes that we proposed. They liked the focus on identifying special educational needs early, and the focus on stronger school-based provision to meet those needs. They liked the reductions in paperwork for teachers, and the emphasis on involving children with SEN in decisions about their education.
	A number of other issues were raised during consultation. We listened to people's views very carefully, and have made changes to the draft in response. In chapter 1 we have brought together the strategic planning functions of school governing bodies and LEAs in regard to SEN, to make it easier for parents and others to know who is responsible for doing what.
	We have referred to the requirement for LEAs, through the Special Educational Needs (Provision of Information by Local Education Authorities) Regulations 2001, to publish a range of information on their policies for special educational needs, any development plans, and their arrangements for monitoring services for SEN and keeping them under review. That will include details of what LEAs would expect schools to provide for children with SEN during the school action and school action plus phasesschool-based SEN provision in the draft codeand what LEAs themselves would expect to provide by way of support. LEAs will need to work closely in partnership with their schools to draw up the information, which will mean better information for parents on how support is provided locally.
	We have provided fuller guidance for LEAs on the services that they are expected to provide for parents through parent partnerships, and on resolving disagreements with schools and parents. We have strengthened the guidance on seeking and taking account of the views of children. Chapters 4, 5 and 6 of the draft code give stronger support to the role of the SEN co-ordinator in helping school governing bodies and head teachers to raise standards of achievement for children with SEN, and recognise their need for support in schools.
	The guidance on assessments in chapter 7 has been strengthened by clarification of the terms on which LEAs should seek advice, and making it clear that they should seek the views of the child. We have enhanced the guidance on specifying provision for individual pupils in their statements, and highlighted the accountability that schools and LEAs share for children with statements when funds are delegated. That is in chapter 8. We have been able to address issues raised during the consultation, and have improved the existing code of practice in the process.
	Many people expressed particular concerns about the section on specifying special educational provision in children's statements in the consultation draft. They feared that it could be read as weakening the position of children with statements. It has been suggested that the draft code is unlawful in what it says about specifying provision in statements. I do not believe that it is. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), formerly Secretary of State for Education and Employment, and my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith), formerly Under-Secretary of State, described the changes that we planned to make to the consultation draft. Let me explain how we want them to work.
	The draft code makes it clear that a statement should describe all a child's special educational needs clearly and in full, set out the main objectives that the special educational provision aims to meet, specify clearly and in detail the provision required to meet each of the child's needs, and describe arrangements for setting shorter-term objectives for the child and any special arrangements for the annual review of the statement.
	The code stresses the importance of the school monitoring and evaluating the child's progress during the year, and places a new emphasis on the importance of the child's progress towards identified outcomes being monitored by the LEA with the school.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) said a few moments ago, the current code of practice advises that provision in a child's statement should
	normally be specific, detailed and quantified.
	The draft code that we are considering today advises that appropriate provision for each identified need should always be specified in terms that are clear, specific and detailed. It advises that provision should be quantified as necessary, and explains that that means according to the needs and circumstances of each individual child and that, in detailing appropriate provision, local education authorities may often need to quantify it.
	The draft code is consistent with the law and does not deny help to children who need it. Provision in children's statements must relate to their individual needs and the context in which they may be taught, as that will be part of the provision. We want statements to be clear about what is to be provided, how it is to be provided and for what purpose. That is why we have emphasised in the draft code that statements should set out the arrangements for monitoring the child's progress towards identified outcomes, to check the effectiveness of the provision over time.

Win Griffiths: Do Ministers intend to issue to schools further detailed guidance, with examples if necessary, on quantifying the support that has been identified as necessary to meet the child's specified needs?

Stephen Timms: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who I know follows these matters very closely. I confirm that our intention is to issue guidance dealing with those matters.

Harold Best: Will the guidance notes include references to mechanical aids and other teaching aids that may be considered necessary but might be expensive? Computer programmes, for example, can be extremely helpful to children suffering from dyslexia.

Stephen Timms: I am sure that it will contain references to those matters. However, my hon. Friend will have to wait to see the actual document to see how that will happen. I shall make a couple of points on that in just a moment.

David Laws: Will the Minister give way?

Stephen Timms: I need to make a little more headway, if the hon. Gentleman will allow me, but I will then gladly give way to him. This is a very important subject about which many questions have been asked and I should like to explain the Government's thinking on it.
	The Government believe, and I think that hon. Members will agree, that the quality of provision and its effectiveness are of prime importance. When a child's special educational needs and circumstances are such that provision must be quantified to meet those needs, we expect that to happen. That is the basis of the guidance in the draft code of practice. It may help if I give some examples to illustrate our thinking.
	A child in a mainstream school with severe language difficulties might, for example, require a daily or weekly period of time to be provided by school staff to deliver an individual language programme. I would anticipate that, in most such circumstances, the amount of time would be quantified.
	Let us, however, take another possible example, involving a visually impaired child in a mainstream school. That child or his school may require advice or help from a specialist teacher of the visually impaired, which is specified in the statement, but it may make no sense to specify the number of hours in the statement, or a minimum number may suffice as the time required may fluctuate with the changing needs of the child or his teachers for support.
	The child may also need the type of aids described by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Mr. Best), such as low vision aids or computing equipment. As the child matures or curriculum requirements change, such aids become out of date and the specialist teacher at the school will identify more appropriate ones. It therefore makes sense to be flexible about how they are specified in the statement. The new code seeks to avoid undue rigidity, which was a risk when interpreting the wording of the old code.

David Laws: What effect does the Minister expect the change in wording to have on the provision of special educational assistance in schools? In particular, can he sum up in a sentence the reason he believes that the wording will be in the interests of our constituents as opposed to the old wording, which many feel is more in the interests of children in schools?

Stephen Timms: We are seeking to achieve a focus on quality, rather than just quantity. There are instances where flexibility is needed in the best interests of the child. We do not want to take people automatically down the route of quantification if the best interests of the child can be expressed more effectively in another way. That is why the code refers to quantification where necessary.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: I remain deeply concerned about the quantification aspects of the proposal because my local authority is trying to close a school in a cost-cutting exercise, saying that the school is too expensive to run. With respect to preventing and resolving disagreements, we all want to ensure that all children receive the same quality of service, wherever they reside in the UK. How will the Minister ensure that each authority deals with disputes in an equitable manner? Is there any intention to take reports from each authority to ascertain how effective the dispute forums are?

Stephen Timms: I hope that the dispute forums are effective; that is our intention. The provision made in particular schools for particular children with particular kinds of support needs may well differ depending on the circumstances that prevail. We need that flexibility to ensure that the best support is provided. It is important that the dispute mechanism to which my hon. Friend refers is addressed. I want to assure her and the House that we are anxious that this should be done correctly and that the code should allow the most appropriate provision for children in every part of the country.
	The draft code is designed to ensure that, as the law requires, local education authorities consider each child's needs on an individual basis and specify the right sort of help in their statements. That is why, for the first time, we are making it absolutely clear that LEAs must not, in any circumstances, have blanket policies never to quantify provision in statements. That advance has been widely welcomed. It is also why we are supporting the guidance on specifying provision in statements with changes elsewhere in the draft code to the guidance on assessments.
	Following helpful interventions during the debates on the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001 in another place, we have now made it clear that professionals giving advice can comment on the amount of provision that they consider appropriate for a child and that LEAs must not have blanket policies preventing that. Again, that has been welcomed.

Mike Hancock: The issue of the quantity of care is vital. Would parents have grounds for objecting to a statement if the quality of care was acceptable, but the quantity was not? As the measure is worded, I sense that parents would not have the right to object on those grounds. That might make it easier for an LEA to avoid spending the right amount of money on a child who might have to go to a special school, perhaps even out of his area. Without the quantification criteria being addressed properly, the LEA would find it easy to do that.

Stephen Timms: The form of words in the code is quantification where necessary. Those who draw up the statement will decide and parents and, indeed, the children themselves will have the opportunity to make a contribution to the process. If parents are unhappy, they can appeal to the SEN tribunal.
	The draft code of practice will, I believe, help significantly to improve provision for children with special educational needs. The changes reflect changes in education since the original code was introduced and will allow for better attention to be given to children's needs. I commend the draft code to the House.

John Hayes: It is important to say at the outset that the discussion thus far has been conducted in a constructive and co-operative way. The Bill that became the Special Needs and Disability Act 2001 was dealt with constructively in Committee in both the Lords and the Commons. We all want to do our best by children with special educational needs.
	This is not a party political matter. There are differing views across all parties. There are, however, important differences between myself and the Minister and between my party's and the Government's position. The debate in Committee focused essentially on the importance that we placed, both here and in the other place, on the individual, specific needs of the child. We tabled amendments that the Government rejected. We feared that unless those specific needs were written into the Bill they would be lost at a later stage. I have to say, more in sorrow than in anger, that that is what we are seeing tonight.
	Ministers assured us time and again that the code of practice would reinforce the individual, specific needs of the childbut it does not. If anything, it weakens the interests of the child by being increasingly imprecise about those needs and failing to specify and quantify what is needed in a way that would be the guarantor of decent provision by local education authorities.
	That stands in stark contrast to the assurances given by the then Secretary of State for Education and Employment on Second Reading of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Bill. He said:
	We shall make it clear that education authorities are required to specify provision in statements, as they always have been. We shall retain the requirement in the regulations for provision to be specified, matching the terms of the duty on education authorities set out in the Education Act 1996. The code will state clearly that statements should
	'describe clearly all the child's special educational needs in full; set out the main objectives that the special educational provision aims to meet; specify clearly and in detail the provision required to meet each of the child's needs; describe the arrangements for setting shorter term objectives for the child; describe any special arrangements for the annual review of the statement . . . '[Official Report, 20 March 2001; Vol. 365, c. 218.]
	In the Lords, we were told by Baroness Blackstone that the code would reinforce the specification and quantification of needs, and Lord Davies of Oldham said:
	In the revised code of practice, we shall insist that the child's statement should describe clearly all the child's special educational needs in full; set out the main objectives that the special educational provision aims to meet; specify clearly, and quantify as necessary, the provision required.[Official Report, House of Lords, 29 January 2001; Vol. 621, c. CWH 92.]
	Those assurances were given to quell some of the disquiet felt about these matters by Conservative Members, some Labour Members and many people outside Parliament. Those people were alarmed in the first place by the infamous Green Paper published by the Government in 1997, which was described by one Labour Member as a green light for the closure of special schools. The aim was to weaken and dilute the statement, which has been an important guarantee of the interests of special needs children and their parents.
	Thankfully, that Green Paper has been consigned to history, if not the rubbish bin, and we came to believe that its proposals would not be implementeduntil we read this new code of practice. I shall set out some of our specific concerns. The Independent Panel for Special Education Advice has stated:
	Our view is that children's best interests would be served if Parliament refused to approved the new code. By failing to quantify provision as expected, it weakens the position of children with special educational needs.
	I shall give some examples of that. The code omits to give guidance to local education authorities on how to fulfil their duties, it omits to tell them how to identify children who have special educational needs, and it omits to mention that they should undertake assessments of children with medical problems that constitute a barrier to them being able to access education provision.
	As the Minister rightly said, in the current statement it is required that a child's needs are stated clearly and in detail, and that they should be quantified and specific. However, the new code suggests that the statement should quantify provision as necessary. Frankly, that is an open invitation to those LEAs that do not take seriously their responsibility for statementing to act in a way that is not in the interests of children or parents.
	We should acknowledge that the performance of LEAs in respect of statementing is patchy. As the Minister knows, some authorities are slow to statement children, and some are resistant to the very principle of statementing. I am not making a party political point, as the problem with the LEAs to which I am referring crosses party boundaries. If the Minister gives those LEAs any opportunity to weaken provision, we must conclude that some will take that opportunityyet that is precisely what the code does.

Diane Abbott: I confirm that it can be an enormous struggle to get children statemented. Until recently, my LEA was dominated by Labour. Parents who do not know their rights and who do not contact their Member of Parliament have no hope of securing a statement for a child. Giving LEAs more room to stall and prevaricate will make the problem much worse for some of the most vulnerable children in the system.

John Hayes: The hon. Lady makes a valid point. There are two problems: some LEAs are inefficient when it comes to statementing, and some are resistant to issuing statements at all. An analysis of the number of children statemented by LEAs, and of the time that that process takes, shows that the performance of LEAs is enormously variable across the country. There is no consistency in the approach of LEAs to the matter of statementing, which is very much left to local choice and judgment. In some cases, that judgment is not all that it might be. Again, I make no party-political point when I say that, as the LEAs to which I refer are run by all parties.
	The Independent Panel for Special Education Advice has tested the matter with lawyers. It has taken legal advice that suggests that the new code will be unlawful. Its barrister has said that the code will be challenged on the grounds that it is reducing the requirement for quantification and provision. That will reduce the protection for children and encourage vague statements, and so achieve exactly what the Department for Education and Skills says it is trying not to achieve.
	The Department for Education and Skills has told the public that it does not want to weaken the position of special needs children. Ministers in this and the other place have told us repeatedly that their intention in bringing more children into mainstream education is not to dilute the quality of education that they receive but simply to alter the place where it is provided. The code however, with its lack of specification and quantification, would damage the provision for special needs children.

Andrew Turner: Does my hon. Friend agree that there are already many examples of cases where provision is not specified sufficiently clearly? If the new code exacerbates the situation, pupils with special educational needs will lose out even more.

John Hayes: As has been said, performance is patchy throughout the country. I want to strengthen the position of those who require special education and their carers, not weaken it. That was my position long before I came to the House when I was a member of a local education authority and was heavily involved in such matters. It has been my position outside of my responsibilities on the Conservative Front Bench, as co-chairman of the all-party group on disablement, and it is my position in the role that I am performing now.
	I said that I did not think that this matter was party political. I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) and agreed with every word he said in his brief intervention. I have also listened carefully to other Labour Members who have intervened from the Back Benches. Their comments clearly reflect the widespread concern about the matter. That causes us some difficulty, as we do not want to frustrate the good intentions behind the code and the legislation. There is much in the code and in the legislation that it attempts to put into practice with which we agree. On the other hand, we would be failing in our duty to the children concerned and their carers if we did not point out that we have these fundamental concerns.
	Another example of where the Government have gone wrong is that the original consultation version of the code contained a section that talked of children's best interests being fulfilled by giving LEAs a
	duty to gather information from schools about registered pupils who live in the LEA's area for whom schools are intervening through School Action Plus. LEAs should also be aware of children of statutory school age who are not attending schools, whether they are excluded, educated otherwise at school or educated at home.
	In other words, the draft code was particular about the responsibilities of LEAs, whereas those responsibilities have been made woollier, weaker and more vague as a result of the amendments to and the omissions from the original draft. That is surprising in the light of the consultation exercise. The people consulted did not take a collective decision that LEAs should be given less clear instructions, nor did the organisations consulted suggest that. If anything, it was suggested that they should be given clearer instructionsmore specificity and more obligations to provide their services equitably.
	While I do not want to delay the House tonight, there is profound concern on both sides of the Chamber about the weakness of the code. In good faith and in the spirit in which this matter has been conducted thus far, during the debate on the Special Educational Needs and Disability Bill and in the Standing Committee that dealt with it, I must warn the Minister that unless he comes up with firm answers to some of the queries raised from those on the Conservative Front Bench and other parts of the House before the matter is debated in the other place, I suspect that my hon. Friends there and many others will want to consider the code critically and may not be able to bring themselves to support it.

Jeremy Corbyn: I shall be brief as there is only an hour and a half for the debate and many Members want to speak. I hope that the Minister for School Standards will have the chance to reply to the debate and that he will seriously address many of the concerns expressed on both sides of the House.
	People in my constituency have expressed concern that the draft code of practice was only published on 22 June, and we are already debating it. I suspect that if our debate had been delayed, more Members would have wanted to contribute. Indeed, more organisations might also have expressed concern.
	The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) referred to local education authorities, whose role is extremely important. The Minister might reflect on the trends in education policy that have often served to reduce and undermine the role of LEAs in favour of direct funding to schools. LEAs are crucial. They are the only line to ensure that children with special needswith disabilities and all that goes with themreceive what they require. If that is left to individual schools, without an LEA to enforce national policy, it will not happen.
	In an earlier intervention I mentioned dyslexia, a condition experienced by many people. During the previous Parliament, I tabled several questions about what happens to people whose dyslexia is not identified and who do not receive the obvious special help that is necessary. A disproportionately large number of such people do not achieve in education. They may end up in prison or have many problems, simply because a basic need was not identified at an early stage when help could have been given. People with dyslexia can achieve just as much as anyone else and, in many cases, much more. It is a question of identification.
	If there is a financial system that militates against the school identifying the problem because it costs the school money and there is an endless rigmarole of delay before the LEA responds to a request from the school, we are clearly failing to give children what they need. Will the Minister reflect on that point in his reply?
	There are many parents in my constituency for whom English is not their first language. Indeed, many of them barely understand any English at all. Their children often have special needs. The children of refugees are often extremely traumatised and suffer from stress. If there are no translation facilities so that those parents can understand what is going on, many of the children lose out. I realise that this point is not necessarily part of this debate, but I hope that the Minister will be aware that because of the effects of housing policies, some asylum-seeking children have to move house, hostel or bed-and-breakfast accommodation so often and change schools so often that they drop out of the education system altogether. They have no opportunity for full-time education.
	Will the Minister address the transitional arrangements for school students with special needs of any sort after the age of 14? The draft code does not seem to include a specific requirement for either local education authorities or individual schools to follow up such pupils, who might end up by dropping out of the system altogether. Will the Minister deal with that point?
	Will the Minister also comment on fixed time limits for requests for statementing? Unless such limits are laid down for local education authorities to reply both to parents and schools on statementing needs, the lack of resources or the unwillingness of LEAs to identify such needs means that they will not be met. I hope that specific timetables will be included in any changes to the code.
	The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings noted that LEAs would be allowed to quantify as necessary. We cannot allow such latitude. If we do so, the resources will not be made available and as a result children with definite special needs will lose out. Everyone is aware that the standards of treatment of special educational needs differ greatly between local authorities.
	I understand what people are trying to do with the code of practice; they are trying to introduce some uniformity across the country. Obviously, I welcome that approach, but I have been advised by many of those involved, and I am afraid that the draft code of practice contains too many loopholes. I hope that the Minister will address those points in his reply and that he will promise us that there will be an opportunity for a greater tightening up of such matters than has been demonstrated hitherto.

Phil Willis: This is an important issue, and I regret that we are spending an hour and a half on it late at night, given that many hon. Members would have liked a full debate. That is important.
	I have been involved with this issue since the enactment of the Education Act 1981. It is interesting that 250,000 pupils in England and Wales now have statements. That is a huge number of young people. It is also interesting that local authorities and schools spend 1.3 billion on supporting special needs, so this is a big issue and it is rather sad to rush the code of practice through when there are so many uncertainties. I hope that the Minister will reflect on that, as well as on the debate, before the code of practice goes to the House of Lords on Thursday.
	There are obvious concerns, and hon. Members have commented on the closure of special schools. The reality is that, in the past 20 years, special schools have not closed in the numbers that people think. There are still roughly 100,000 youngsters in special schoolsthe same figure as 100 years ago. The great success of the education system since 1981 is that many more youngsters who would have gone into special schools have, in fact, been educated with their peers. That is important.
	The hon. Members for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) and for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) raised an important issue, which the Government have tried to address in the code of practice. A great fault is that, since 1981, if a school has recognised that a statement is needed but a parent has not agreed, for whatever reason, it has been impossible for the school to go ahead with the provision, so the child has missed out. I have worked in communities with children from 26 nationalities, and it has sometimes been very difficult to persuade parents that their children have had special needs because they have thought it a stigma to be avoided. The perverse fact is that middle class parents are now knocking on school doors saying that their sons and daughters need statements because they recognise that the system involves additional resources.
	We welcome a great deal of what the code of practice involves. We particularly welcome the involvement of parents and students. We also welcome the increased amount of information that will be available. In particular, as my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) has said, there is an opportunity to resolve conflicts under the regulations, to which the Minister did not refer, but which is very important. Conflicts need to be resolved before they go before the tribunal. I am also pleased that the role of SEN co-ordinators is recognised in the code. Far too often, SENCOs have to do their job, with all the bureaucracy that that involves, in no time at all. Many of them also have full teaching timetables. I hope that the Minister will go further than simply providing advice about time by ensuring that time is actually allocated.

John Hayes: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says about the need to involve parents in conflict resolution at an early stage. He will know that the new terms refer to the need to express the provision in terms of hours, equipment or personnel, but does he agree that the failure clearly to quantify the required provision will lead to greater conflict with parents, who can, at present, usually expect statements to be absolutely clear about the explicit terms of the provision?

Phil Willis: I accept the hon. Gentleman's point, and agree with him wholeheartedly. That is one of the reasons why we might vote against the code. We are uneasy about it and particularly about those provisions. I shall come to them shortly.
	Several provisions in the code must be strengthened. Although we welcome chapter 10 on Working in partnership with other agencies, the language in it is so loose that it beggars belief. For example, paragraph 10.16 contains the ideas that Connexions should be involved with young people particularly from key stage 4 onwards, and no one would disagree with that. However, schools and local authorities have no control over Connexions and, in this paragraph, the Government optimistically say that the Learning and Skills Council and local education authorities should work together. Frankly, the council, which the Government set up, and the LEAs are at odds with each other and, unless the code clarifies how the council and LEAs will work together to provide for youngsters aged between 14 and 19, those youngsters will fall through the bottom again as they have done for so long.
	I come to a point made by the hon. Member for Islington, North. One of the key issues in getting the provision right is for LEAs to have some control over admission rights. The comments of the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings, who speaks for the Conservative party, were a bit rich because his party went into the last election saying that it wanted 24,000 separate admission arrangements. Each school would have been able to deny access to children with special needs if it so wished. It is sad that Conservative Members have not admitted that that was a huge mistake although I accept that the hon. Gentleman has distanced himself from that policy by supporting an appropriate candidate.
	Controlling admission levels is important. It appears that the White Paper will allow private companies to take over schools, private schools to take over state schools and companies for profit to take over schools, so how will we be able to control admission arrangements then? How will be able to ensure that the code of practice is binding on all those organisations? The Minister did not respond to that point adequately earlier, but I hope that he will clarify the position. At the moment, everything is up in the air. If we are saying that only bog standard schools will have to admit children with special needs, we are going back 20 years and before these arguments were even raised.
	Liberal Democrats welcome the enhanced roles for LEAs. We are delighted that the code of practice clearly states their responsibilities. We are also delighted that the Minister has made it clear in the code that individual education plans should be crisp. In the school that I came from 400 youngsters were on the special needs register. If every one of them had had an individual education plan for 10 subjects that would have meant that 4,000 pieces of paper were circulating round the school all the time. The Minister must consider the whole issue of individual education plans.
	Paragraphs 8.36 and 8.37 are the key to the code of practice. It is totally unacceptable to produce a new code saying that we do not need to quantify what is in the statements. The key issue in the past 20 years has been that successive Governments have said, This is what your child needs as a special needs statement, but we will not quantify what they will actually receive. A statement may say that a child needs language therapy, but it does not have to make it clear whether it will be given for one week, every week, every month or once a year. The position is never clarified in that sense. The previous Secretary of State, now the Home Secretary, made it clear on Second Reading of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Bill that quantification would be clarified, and it is a betrayal of the House and of youngsters that that has not happened. There is much about the code of practice that we support. There is also much that we want to support, but the key issue of quantification has not been addressed and for that reason we will vote against the motion.

Angela Watkinson: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to make my maiden speech in this debate.
	At the beginning of this Parliament, I viewed this occasion as one to be planned without due haste and decided to absorb some of the customs and practices of this place before embarking on my 10-minute voyage. However, such has been the quality of the maiden speeches by my new colleagues, who now have that first notch on their guns, that I decided that the absorption of customs and procedures I have managed to achieve so far would have to be enough. I shall therefore proceed without further delay, lest a bravura performance by another colleague prove impossible to follow.
	Before addressing the substance of the debate, I want to pay tribute to my predecessor, Keith Darvill. During the past four years, when he was the first Labour Member of Parliament for Upminster, he worked assiduously on behalf of his constituents and was held in high regard and affection by all sections of the community. The election campaign was fought, as it should be, on policies rather than personalities and with courtesy and good humour. The fact that we are able to serve on the same school governing body illustrates the spirit in which the campaign was conducted and I wish him and his family well.
	Before that, from 1982 until 1997, Upminster was represented by Sir Nicholas Bonsor. He was Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and a distinguished former Army officer who earned a formidable reputation in both capacities during the war in Bosnia. His was a familiar face on our television screens in news bulletins at that time.
	For the benefit of hon. Members who are not familiar with Upminster it is, famously, at the end of the District line, at the eastern boundary of Greater London and the county of Essex. In fact, Havering, of which Upminster forms a part, is 50 per cent. green belt, and in that respect has more in common with Essex than with inner-London boroughs.
	Upminster is special in that it is a constituency of great contrasts. Its outer-lying areas are very rural, with scattered properties and farms. Indeed, one of the earliest cases of foot and mouth disease in the current epidemic was identified on an Upminster farm only 1 mile away from the abattoir at Little Warley where the disease was first discovered. Several other farms were also slaughtered out as a result. Hon. Members will be all too aware of the distressing circumstances and the long-term anxiety caused to farmers who are worried about their livelihoods as that crisis continues.
	The village of North Ockendon has an important claim to fame in that a 17th-century inhabitant, William Coys, created modern beer by using hops instead of malt and water, which made the earlier drink known as wort. I imagine there are many who have cause to thank him for that discoverygoing out for a wort and curry on a Friday night would not have the same popular appeal.
	In the north of the constituency lies a large post-war housing estate, Harold Hill, which is well designed with plenty of green space and trees. Despite various regeneration projects in the past decade, much more remains to be done in the more deprived parts of Harold Hill to increase employment opportunities and improve living standards.
	The loss of one third of their uniformed constables over the past four years has not helped the police in their task of protecting the law-abiding majority from the effects of crime in the area. I have lost count of how many local people have told me that they want a strong visible police presence in their neighbourhood, and I shall miss no opportunity to call for a substantial increase in police numbers so that they can respond to the demands made upon them.
	Upminster also comprises the town of Cranham, where Sir James Oglethorpe MP lived in the hall. He became an important 18th-century celebrity when his attempts at penal reform for debtors led him to be involved in the founding of the state of Georgia, USA. The town of Upminster is mentioned in the Domesday book as having 39 inhabitants, rather fewer than the current figure. It now boasts as one of its town centre landmarks a fine example of a smock mill, which is currently in need of funding for its restoration. Emerson Park is the most prosperous part of the constituency and has many large, desirable properties. Harold Wood grew from a small halt on the Great Eastern railway into a large, pleasant residential area, which now includes the only hospital in the constituency.
	Its proximity to London and the M25 make Upminster ideal commuter territory. The local economy also relies on 5,000 shops and small businesses. They compete successfully, despite the burden of over-regulation, with the larger neighbouring centres of Romford and Lakeside. Council tax has increased by almost 50 per cent. over the last four years, and Upminster has had the third highest increase in the country this year. The formula used to calculate Government grant does not favour Upminster. It includes such factors as the number of houses in multiple occupation, the number of ethnic minorities and unemployment levels. None of those features very prominently and, as a result, the widening gap between grant and spending requirements has to be bridged annually by ever higher council tax. Upminster residents are being bled white.
	The schools in Upminster are popular and attract many families, including my own, to live there. The only complaints about education that I received while campaigning were from parents who were unable to find a place for their children at the school of their choice. Many are over-subscribed, including comprehensive, single-sex, denominational and grant-aided schools, and two excellent special schools, Ravensbourne and Corbets Tey. That demonstrates the demand by parents for choice in education, including special education.
	Having spent 12 years working in a special school, I know that it is impossible to generalise about special needs pupils. The school catered for physically handicapped and delicate childrenterms that have long since fallen out of use, but which in the 1970s and 1980s covered a wide spectrum of need. Some of those pupils, with medical problems such as diabetes, epilepsy, heart conditions and even asthma and eczema, would probably have benefited from mainstream education, with the appropriate support. They certainly flourished in the small classes and protected environment that the school provided.
	There were, however, others with very disabling conditions, some quite rare, who I think would have experienced extreme difficulty in mainstream schooling, and whose families would have missed the support mechanism that a special school is able to provide. I recall one pupil who arrived, aged five, in his mother's arms, in baby clothes, with a dummy in his mouth. He had Freeman Sheldon syndrome, a rare condition of multiple skeletal deformities, and was not expected to walk or achieve any degree of independence. He quickly developed into a child of cheerful disposition, with high intelligence and a wry sense of humour, who went on not just to walk but at 21 to gain a degree in computer science at London universitya tribute, I believe, to the special school that was able to cater for his needs.
	Of course, inclusion has merit for many special needs pupilsthose who are able to participate and achieve in, and enjoy, that environmentbut we cannot have total inclusion. The need for special schools will continue for those pupils who, for a variety of reasons, need the protected environment and specialist provision that only a special school can provide. I had to look pretty hard in the code of practice for references to special schools, and there were not many. Their role should not be underestimated, and I hope that they may rely on inclusion in the choices made available to special needs pupils.
	I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) for drawing to my attention the concerns of the Wiltshire Dyslexia Society on two counts. The first is the failure of the code of practice to require statemented pupils' special needs to be quantified, which has already been mentioned by several speakers. That leads to the obvious concern that adequate funding will not be provided to meet those unquantified needs, which may influence mainstream schools' willingness to accept those pupils.
	Secondly, the code of practice requires individual education plans to focus on only three to four targets. Given that some pupils have complex needs, that limitation could lead to some important needs being overlooked. I would have much more confidence in the capacity of the code of practice to make proper provision for all special needs pupils if both those points were addressed, together with a strengthening of the role of special schools in the spectrum of special needs provision.

Win Griffiths: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson). It is obvious from her contribution that she will make many more assured and expert speeches on issues in education, particularly special education in which she clearly has a great deal of experience. I also thank her for her kind tribute to our old colleague Keith Darvill who, unfortunately for us, is not back in the House. However, the campaign in Upminster was undoubtedly conducted in a generous spirit, and Keith made his mark even if he could not win the seat a second timewho knows, we may well see him here in the not too distant future. It is plain that the hon. Lady is committed to Upminster; she lives in the community and is committed to it, especially to its special education and the children involved. Her concerns are shared by Members on both sides of the House.
	As there is only an hour and a half to debate the draft code of practice, it is all too easy to focus on the areas about which we are concerned. I preface my concerns by pointing out that the code of practice has a number of pluses, including more concentration and focus on working with parents when preparing statements of special educational needs and preparing to provide help and support for children with special educational needs. The code also puts an emphasis on encouraging pupil participationtrying to get pupils more involved in the development of special educational programmes and whatever is felt to be necessary to help them in diagnosing and meeting their needs.
	The code also includes welcome guidance on early years settings, which are incredibly important; in fact, they are vital. The earlier that special needs are identified, the more likely it is that the education of children with special educational needs will have a successful outcome and that that will be achieved effectively, not only for the child but for the school and the local education authority. By meeting needs with appropriate expenditure at an early stage, it is possible to avoid what can often be heavy expenditure later.
	I shall not dwell on all my concerns, some of which have already been raised today. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will provide further reassurance that the special educational needs guidance to be issued by his Department will meet all our concerns about issues surrounding the word quantification. I do not really like the word because, as has been said, the quality of provision is also important. Nevertheless we should not duck the question of specific, detailed descriptions of the provision that children need.
	The draft code focuses a great deal on children's needs and the ability to identify them properly. It is therefore disappointing that it does not make stronger reference to identifying the specific provision required to meet those needs. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will reassure me on special needs guidance.

John Hayes: The hon. Gentleman made a valuable and important contribution to the Committee stage of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001. Does he accept that referring to quantification as necessary is weak? As necessary is a euphemism, which usually means when you fancy or as you like.

Win Griffiths: I do not totally agree with that. Words such as reasonable have been used by Governments of all shades of political opinion throughout the years. If we apply a tight definition to necessary in the context of all that is said about the need to identify a child's specific educational requirements, we could argue that the word means that those requirements should be properly reflected. I agree that we could have avoided a semantic argument if more had been said about the need for detailed provision. I place great faith in my hon. Friend the Minister in respect of the Department's guidance.
	I shall speak about only one other matter because I agree with much that has been said on both sides of the House. I raised mobility and independence training during the Report stage of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Bill, as the Royal National Institute for the Blind brief conveniently points out to all hon. Members who have been able to read it. That organisation expresses anxiety because its report Shaping the Future shows that few children who need mobility and independence training get it.
	My hon. Friend the Minister responded by saying that the Government supported a multi-agency approach to the problem. I hope that he will reassure me that the SEN guidance that will be issued to schools and local authorities provides some clarity about the requirements for giving children a fair chance in school and in life so that they can live full lives and, when possible, make a positive contribution to society. I hope that he will provide positive information on the guidance's contents in respect of the specific provision that children need.

Bob Blizzard: I shall be brief. I congratulate the hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) on an impressive maiden speech, which was delivered with impeccable clarity. I enjoyed her tribute to her predecessor, and I found the image of two candidates spending many months on the campaign trail, and attending the same governing body meeting, charming. I am sure that those meetings were of the usual high quality.
	I have never taken the District line all the way to Upminster, but many years ago, before the M25 was built, I drove from Kent to East Anglia, and had to wend my way through the Ockendons after forcing my way through the Dartford tunnel. I therefore have some memories of the hon. Lady's constituency.
	I want to return briefly to what has become known as quantification. I am grateful for the further explanation provided by my hon. Friend the Minister, and I know that my constituents will welcome the examples that he has given, which will partly reassure them, but I should like to explain why they will still view the phrase as necessary with some concern. Their unease derives from the battles that I mentioned earlier in an intervention. Many parents have battled with LEAs over many years to try to get the special needs provision that they feel their children deserve and need. They feel that LEAs will use whatever opportunities they can to try to make as little provision as possible. That background suspicion of LEAs is what makes them concerned about the phrase as necessary.
	Will my hon. Friend complete the process of reassurance and tell us that he does not expect the number of cases in which quantification is necessary to be significantly smaller under the new code than under the existing code? Will he send out a signal by giving that assurance, or by telling us that quantification will normally be necessary? If the guidance sent out to schools reflects that message, I am sure that the parents in my constituency who take a close interest in this matter will be reassured and feel grateful to the Government for polishing up a code of practice that is otherwise very good.

Rudi Vis: First I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for being present for this rather important debate. I thought that you might not be in the Chair after the many debates that have taken place today, but I am sure that you decided to pay attention because this one is so important.
	The code of practice contains several good ideas, but unfortunately, other aspects suffer in comparison with the current code. I have three areas of concern. The current code advises local education authorities that
	the provision (in Part 3 of the Statement) should normally be specific, detailed and quantified (in terms, for example, of hours of ancillary or specialist teaching support).
	However, the code laid before Parliament on 20 June advises LEAs in the following terms:
	The statement should . . . quantify provision as necessary.
	It also states:
	there may often be a need to express it in terms of hours, equipment or personnel.
	In other words, the concept of the norm is now ambiguous. There is no guidance on the criteria that are to be used when deciding quantification of provision. That is not an improvement; it is worse.
	The Independent Panel for Special Education Advice, from which most of my information comes, has obtained counsel's opinion on the wording of the new code. In short, the opinion is that the guidance on quantification in the code is unlawful. The panel believes that Parliament should withhold approval of the code unless paragraph 8:37 is redrafted. The view of David Wolfe, a barrister from Matrix chambers, is that broadly speaking, the code is unlawful and will be read as reducing the requirements for quantification of provision, thus reducing protection for children. He believes that it will encourage vague statements and achieve exactly what the Department for Education and Skills says that it is not trying to achieve.
	I also want to deal with two more matters. There are questions concerning the removal of guidance on the duty to identify children with special educational needs. The Education Act 1996 gives LEAs the duty to identify children with such needs and the existing code of practice advises LEAs that in order to fulfil that duty, they should gather information from maintained schools about children living in their area who have special educational needs at stage 3.
	The consultation draft of the new code, which was issued in July, brought the guidance into line with the new proposal on Action/Action Plus. In other words, it required local education authorities to collect information on children at Action Plus. It strengthened the guidance by advising LEAs to be aware of the need to identify children with special educational needs among those who were excluded from school and/or being educated at home.
	The final version of the guidance excludes most of those provisions, and they should be brought back. They should be part of the guidance.
	There is also a terrible omission in the code of practiceguidance when an assessment of a child with medical needs is necessary. I know that you have referred to that. I liked your maiden speech and I congratulate you on it.
	The Education Act 1996 suggested that children with medical needs that do not give rise to learning difficulties, but which prevent or hinder them from making use of education facilities of the sort generally provided, are entitled to be considered for statutory assessment. That is broadly speaking what you said. I am most grateful that you mentioned in your maiden speech

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman was not in this place when I made my maiden speech.

Rudi Vis: That is right, Mr. Speaker. I am talking about the hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson). You are younger than me, Mr. Speaker, so I could have been in the Chamber when you made your maiden speech, but I was not.

Lynne Jones: Is my hon. Friend advocating that we should vote against the motion? There are many of us who, like me, have not studied the provisions in detail but are concerned because we have received briefings from bodies such as the Royal National Institute for the Blind, which are concerned because some of the provisions will be detrimental. Does my hon. Friend support the provisions in the code of practice, or does he not?

Rudi Vis: I am grateful for that intervention. I am sorry to say that I will not vote for the motion. I believe that the old code was superior in a number of ways to the draft code of practice. If the vote goes against the Government we shall still have the old code, and we shall be better off. I shall vote against the motion, and I hope that my side will win. I hope that there will then be a reinvestigation of the three areas that I wished to mention.
	It is necessary for children with medical needs to be treatedbut I shall finish with that, because one of the Government Whips is signalling to me that I should, although I have a great deal to say about these matters. It seems that the code does not pay sufficient attention to the treatment of children with medical needs.

Stephen Timms: With the leave of the House, I shall reply.
	We have had a thoughtful debate, and I know that many people who follow these matters with great interest will be pleased by the care with which Members have considered the issues.
	I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) on her maiden speech, which the House much enjoyed. I appreciated her tribute to her predecessor, Keith Darvill, whom I know well. We particularly enjoyed her account of her constituency. It is interesting to know the significance of South Ockendon in the history of beer, which was a new discovery for me. On the basis of the contribution that she has made tonight, the House will look forward to hearing from her on many occasions.
	The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) raised three particular concerns: quantification, the obligations of local education authorities and the treatment of medical conditions. A number of my hon. Friends and other hon. Members have expressed concern about quantification. I will reflect on the points that have been made on that subject. I emphasise that the assurances given by my right hon. and hon. Friends in debates on the matter have all been fully reflected in the draft code that is before us. I refer hon. Members to paragraph 8:35 and those that follow. It is important that we permit flexibility in order to ensure that the needs of children with special educational needs can be met in the best way. We do not want always to have an over-rigid quantitative approach to meeting those needs, as another approach may be more appropriate.
	On the other two issues
	It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, Mr. Speaker put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 16 (Proceedings under an Act or European Union documents).

Mr. Speaker: I think the Ayes have it.

Hon. Members: No.
	Division deferred till Wednesday 11 July, pursuant to Order [28 June 2001].

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993

Motion made,
	That, for the purposes of their approval under section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, the Financial Statement and Budget Report 200102, and the Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report 200102 shall be treated as if they were instruments subject to the provisions of Standing Order No. 118 (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation).[Mr. Caplin.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Speaker: With permission, I shall put together motions 6 to 12.

Hon. Members: No.

Police

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
	That the draft Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Drug Testing of Persons in Police Detention) (Prescribed Persons) Regulations 2001, which were laid before this House on 20th June, be approved.[Mr. Caplin.]
	Question agreed to.

International Immunities and Privileges

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
	That the draft International Criminal Court (Immunities and Privileges) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 20th June, be approved.[Mr. Caplin.]
	Question agreed to.

International Immunities and Privileges

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
	That the draft Specialised Agencies of the United Nations (Immunities and Privileges of UNESCO) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 25th June, be approved.[Mr. Caplin.]
	Question agreed to.

Postal Services

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
	That the draft Sub-Post Office Start-Up Capital Subsidy Scheme Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 22nd June 2001, be approved.[Mr. Caplin.]
	Question agreed to.

Northern Ireland

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
	That the draft Life Sentences (Northern Ireland) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 26th June, be approved.[Mr. Caplin.]

Hon. Members: No.
	Division deferred till Wednesday 11 July, pursuant to Order [28 June 2001].

Northern Ireland

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
	That the draft Life Sentences (Northern Ireland Consequential Amendments) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 26th June, be approved.[Mr. Caplin.]

Hon. Members: No.
	Division deferred till Wednesday 11 July, pursuant to Order [28 June 2001].

Town and Country Planning

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
	That the draft Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2001, which were laid before this House on 3rd July, be approved.[Mr. Caplin.]
	Question agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [28 June],
	That Private Members' Bills shall have precedence over Government business on 26th October, 2nd, 23rd and 30th November 2001, 11th, 18th and 25th January, 15th March, 12th and 19th April, 10th May, 21st June and 19th July 2002.[Mr. Caplin.]

Hon. Members: Object.
	Debate to be resumed tomorrow.[Mr. Caplin.]

DEREGULATION AND REGULATORY REFORM COMMITTEE

Motion made,
	That Mr. Russell Brown, Mr. David Chaytor, Brian Cotter, John Cryer, Mr. Jeffrey M. Donaldson, Mr. Paul Goodman, Andy King, Dr Ashok Kumar, Mr. Andrew Love, John McDonnell, Mr. Denis Murphy, Dr Doug Naysmith, Mr. Peter Pike, Mr. Andrew Rosindell, Mr. Anthony Steen, Ian Stewart and Brian White be members of the Select Committee on Deregulation and Regulatory Reform.

Hon. Members: Object.

SCHOOL SPORTS (HEALTH AND SAFETY)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.[Mr. Caplin.]

Jane Griffiths: I am pleased to have the opportunity to discuss such an important topic. Before launching into the debate, however, let me say that the ballot for end-of-day Adjournment debates this week seems to have thrown up something unusual. Yesterday's debate was initiated by the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Trend), and tomorrow's will be initiated by my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May). It seems to be central Berkshire week.
	Tonight's debate concerns health and safety in school sports events. Let me begin by stressing the importance to me of the involvement of pupils in sport. We often hear nowadays of the increasing obesity of younger people. In 1999, the Department of Health revealed that obesity had risen dramatically in the previous five years. In 1999, 17 per cent. of men were obese, compared with 13 per cent. in 1993, while nearly 20 per cent. of women were obese, compared with 16 per cent. in 1993.
	Similarly, the report The Health of Young People '95-97 showed that among young people aged between two and 15, 29 per cent. of girls and 44 per cent. of boys did not participate in physical activity lasting at least 30 minutes in any given week, excluding activities at school.
	There are public health concerns about problems being stored up for the future health of our nation. As a result of those concerns, the Department of Health launched a number of initiatives aimed at nutritional standards for school meals, the promotion of healthy travel to school, including cycling and walking, and the promotion of more exercise for childrenfor example, an hour's exercise every day.
	School sport obviously has a key part to play in encouraging pupils to be active. Active children are more likely to be active adults. Involvement in sport through school offers young people the chance to get exercise, and to do good to their health. Sport in schools offers much more as well: learning about team work, learning about and achieving personal excellence, and the discipline that is needed for pupils to do well. For those and many other reasons, I believe that it is important for school sports to happen and for pupils to be offered a chance to take part in them.
	I do not want children to be wrapped in cotton wool and prevented from gaining the benefits of sport that I have described. I had rather a robust view of safety when bringing up my own children. I believe that children learn through experience about the boundaries of what they can do safely. If they are cut off from that experience, they will not learn about those boundaries, and may put themselves at risk in their future lives. The obvious counter-argument is that we do not want to encourage reckless behaviour. We want to make sure that, where possible, risks are reduced.
	That brings me to my purpose in seeking the debate. Before I describe the situation, let me repeat that I do not want it to be seen as providing an excuse for pupils not to engage in sports.
	At my first advice surgery after the general election, in Woodley library, I was visited by Alison Mendes, a resident of east Reading. She had come to see me because she was concerned about what had happened to her daughter. She felt very uninformed about what had really happened.
	On 14 May, Mrs. Mendes's daughter, Bianca Halliburton, took part in an inter-school athletics event representing her school, the Blessed Hugh Faringdon Roman Catholic school in Reading. Bianca had volunteered to fill a vacancy in the school hurdling team. According to the school, she had received no training in hurdling this year. The school says that she had represented the school athletics team the previous year, and had previously competed in a hurdles race. I have not been able to discover whether she was trained in hurdling the previous year, before taking part in a race. The fact is, however, that on 14 May Bianca took part in a hurdling event, and fell. She broke both legs very badly, and Mrs. Mendes wants to know why.
	The school is keen to stress that Bianca was not pressurised into taking part in the event. It is also keen to state that she had not been training this year. If the fact that Bianca had not been training is not relevant to what happened, why mention it? If it is relevant, there are serious questions to be asked about why the school put her forward for the event.
	I had not intended to go into any detail about the correspondence that I have had with the schoolI did not think it necessarybut it happens that today the school wrote to another of my constituency neighbours, my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter), in whose constituency it is situated. I should point out that the incident happened in my constituency, not at the school itself. The school told him that it might well experience detrimental effects as a result of this debate. The school is concerned that its position may be misrepresented.
	Consequently, I have decided that I will share with the House the school's representations to me, so that there can be no misunderstanding or misrepresentation. The school has been clear that Bianca volunteered to participate in the event, that she had not been in training and that it felt that the event in which she participated and broke both her legs was conducted correctly.
	My constituency neighbour has written to me on the matter and undertaken, as I understand it from his letter, to ensure that the Minister replying to this debate is fully briefed. Such an approach to an Adjournment debate is rather interesting, and you, Madam Deputy Speaker, may wish to offer some guidance on it. We have had some very helpful guidance from Mr. Speaker on the conduct of Adjournment debates.
	Reading borough council, which runs the sports stadium where the accident happened, has investigated the matter. That investigation shows that the hurdles for the race were set at the correct low level and were facing the right way. Having formerly, as a Reading borough councillor and chair of the arts and leisure committee, been responsible for the council's sports service, I would be surprised if the answer were any different. It is a professional and well-run service.
	The fact that the hurdles were set out correctly is backed up by the astonishing photograph in today's Reading Evening Post, which shows Bianca as she falls towards the athletics track. Behind Bianca one sees a hurdle in the next lane beginning to fall over, and one sees the hurdle in Bianca's lane beginning to fall over. It is not possible to see from the picture whether Bianca has already had the accident that hurt her so badly, whether it is in the process of happening or whether it is still to happen. However, that still does not answer Mrs. Mendes's question about what happened to Bianca on 14 May.
	I could not get an answer from the council on the matter other than on how the hurdles were set out. I have been told that the papers of the officer who investigated the accident were now with the council's insurer, Zurich Municipal, and that it was not possible to find out anything more about what had happened.
	I then spoke to Zurich Municipal. It said that it had been notified of an event at which a childBianca Halliburton is 12 years oldwas injured and that it has asked an inspector to investigate the matter. As the investigation has not yet started and no claim has yet been lodged, I have not been able to obtain a clear answer about what happened to Bianca. However, I have established that an internal Reading borough council report has stated that the hurdles were set out correctly.
	Has Mrs. Mendes had more luck than I have in obtaining an answer? When she came to see me, she said that she had spoken to the school, but that she felt that she had not been told what had happened. It seems that no one at the sporting event saw what really happened. The starter of the race did not see what happened because he had just turned away to put down the starting pistol. Other pupils from the school could not see what happened because they were on the other side of the stadium from where the accident occurred. Mrs. Mendes has, however, managed to find the brother of someone taking part who might have seen something. He said that he thought that Bianca staggered or hesitated just before the hurdle, but he could not say much more.
	Mrs. Mendes then found a teacher from another school who was present at the event. She said that Bianca was about to jump the hurdle and fell. That version seems to fit in with the picture in today's local newspaper. However, the remainder of that teacher's comments are worrying. It is of course essential for a first aider to be present at any such sports event. After Bianca had her accident, the first aider asked her to try to stand up. However, it was only when it became clear that she could not stand up that an ambulance was called. It is fortunate for Bianca that, as the doctor who saw her said later, the treatment that she received from the first aider did not worsen her condition.
	Bianca was off school from the date of the accident, 14 May, until yesterday, 9 July, and had to use a wheelchair for most of that time. I am very pleased to say, however, that her school put in place measures to assist her in returning to school. She is now getting on with her life. I hope that this awful thing that has happened to her will not have a lasting impact.
	At 12, one is growing very fast, and it is important to be able to be active at that age. I hope that Bianca grows up fit and healthy and able to take part in sport in the future. I know that Mrs. Mendes is not seeking to blame anyone and is not seeking retribution. I do not respect the culture of blame, retribution and compensation, and it is important to campaign positively for better outcomes. But Mrs. Mendes wants to know what happened to Bianca and that it will not happen to anyone else's daughter.
	As I have said, I have not been able to identify exactly what happened to Bianca on 14 May, or why it happened. The Reporting of Injuries, Disease and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995 require reports of such incidents, a proportion of which are then investigated. That applies to workplaces, but it is not clear whether it applies to sports venues such as Palmer park stadium in east Reading, where the accident occurred.
	The Health and Safety Executive told me that it had not had a report under the regulations and that it was not clear that there was a requirement for such a report. In talking to a number of bodies such as Sport England, the Youth Sports Trust and the Health and Safety Executive, I have been pointed to one source for guidelines on safety in sport. There is what is considered to be standard guidance, issued by the British Association of Advisers and Lecturers in Physical Education. The guidance covers many matters: the setting up of hurdles; the correct spacing; that they must be facing the right way; that they are not too high; and that they are correctly weighted. I have referred to all those matters.
	The guidance also states that someone taking part in such an event should have had previous progressive practice. That means that people should have become used to the stride in, the height and the technique necessary for hurdling. It also states that people competing should have previous experience and, on the day, should have the appropriate attitude and be warmed up. In this case, the school states that Bianca had had previous experience in competing in hurdles. I do not know what training she had had; there appears to have been none this year. In itself, this leaves me uneasy. I remain to be convinced that someone should be allowed to take part in an event that they have not taken part in for a year without at least some refresher training.
	My approach is a positive one, to try to get everyone working together. It is clearly important that we find out what happened to Bianca so that we can find out if we can prevent it from happening to anyone else's son or daughter. I would like to get everyone together locally from the council, the school, people present at the event and anyone else concerned to try to establish what happeneda summit meeting.
	I would also like to see the British Association of Advisers and Lecturers in Physical Education invited, as it is used to giving expert witness. The aim of the summit would be to identify everything that is known about what happened on 14 May and to try to work out what happened. That should establish whether anything can be done to prevent it from happening again.
	If that is not possible, I will search with Mrs. Mendes for a way to establish an independent inquiry to do the same. Either way, I hope that we will learn more about what happened to Bianca Halliburton on 14 May. That is where the Government come in. If anything comes up that requires Government actionI wonder whether some further regulation of school sports might be necessaryI would like to be able to feed that to my hon. Friend the Minister. I also hope that the Minister will undertake to try to find ways of creating greater awareness of the British Association of Advisers and Lecturers in Physical Education guidance and more rigour in implementing and interpreting it.
	As I began by saying, school sport has an important part to play in our society. We must not let what happened to Bianca Halliburton prevent people from taking part in school sports, but we must learn from it and find if anything can be done to prevent it from happening to anyone else.

Ivan Lewis: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East (Jane Griffiths) on securing this debate. It is an honour to be allowed to participate in what appears to be central Berkshire week. I will not take personally her references to obese men. I appreciate the responsible way in which she put her concerns about this incident in context, especially in relation to the importance of young people participating in sport at school.
	Let me clarify where the responsibility lies for the health and safety of pupils taking part in sports days or in any other school activity. The Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 and its associated regulations place a general duty on employers to protect the health and safety not only of employees but of others affected by the activities of their organisation, so the responsibility for the health and safety of school pupils rests either with the local authority, for community and voluntary-controlled schools; with the governors, for foundation and voluntary-aided schools; or with the proprietor, for independent schools.
	The employer is required by the regulations to conduct an assessment of the possible risks arising from the school's activities and to introduce measures to minimise those risks. We expect the relevant personnel to discharge that responsibility professionally and in accordance with statute and good practice.
	That is not to say, as my hon. Friend said, that we should wrap our children in cotton wool. There are risks in many things that we do in life, and we cannot deny our children opportunities that will enrich their lives, nor can we ban every sporting activity for the fear that it carries some risk of injury. It would also be wrong to give any impression that teachers are to blame in advance of a full investigation of any individual incident.
	Naturally, in this case my sympathies go out to Bianca, who must have suffered a great deal of pain from the injuries that she sustained, especially to her legs. My officials have spoken to her head teacher and I am happy to learn that she has now returned to school, albeit on crutches, to resume her education. I wish her a speedy recovery.
	I understand that the event at which the injury occurred was organised by Reading borough council. The council's lawyers are currently investigating the incident, so my hon. Friend will understand that I cannot at this stage comment further on it specifically, but I have asked my officials to liaise with officers in Reading, and we must consider whether any lessons can be learned.
	Bianca's mother, Mrs. Mendes, certainly has a right to know the truth about the incident, and my hon. Friend, as the Member concerned, has a right to be involved in that process, representing Mrs. Mendes in accordance with her wishes. I hope that my hon. Friend will find that reassuring.
	I further assure my hon. Friend that if she feels, as a consequence of further investigations into the incident, or because it has brought to her attention issues in which she was not fully involved before, that Ministers should be aware of implications or lessons, I will be pleased to hear from her at an appropriate time.
	I take this opportunity to express my sadness at the recent deaths of Bunmi Shagaya, who drowned on a school visit to France, and Yusun Moolla, who drowned on a school visit in Warwickshire. My thoughts, and I am sure those of the House, are with their families, friends and teachers as they struggle to come to terms with their terrible loss.
	Inevitably, many parents will be worried about whether they should allow their children to take part in school trips. When things go so tragically wrong, it is a natural reaction to want to cocoon our children and prevent them from participating in school trips or extracurricular activities of any kind. Of course we must reflect on what went wrong, the lessons to be learned and any action that the Government can take further to reduce risk. However, we are not prepared to engage in a kneejerk reaction or to rush to judgment. That often leads to wrong decisions being made for the wrong reasons, and to bad legislation and bad guidance.
	Millions of pupils in this country participate in incident-free school visits every year. They derive tremendous benefit from taking part. The educational and personal development opportunities that such visits present are an integral part of the learning experience that we offer our young people. There is no justification for suggesting to parents that they should prevent their children from participating in such activities.
	What is vital is that the adults who organise the visits plan their itineraries carefully, assess what might go wrong, and take steps to minimise the likelihood that it will go wrong. That process of assessment should continue throughout the visit, so that any changes in plans are similarly assessed and action taken. The steps to take are set out in a guide produced by the Department called Health and Safety of Pupils on Educational Visits, which is free to all schools, and to parents too if they want a copy. It is also available on the Department's website.
	The guide was drawn up with the assistance of health and safety experts, teachers, tour operators and activity providers, the police and rescue services. It is regarded as robust, and it draws together a lot of good advice. In the context of the debate that has taken place after the recent tragedies, it is reassuring that the guidance has received significant praise from the media and from people in the education system. They consider that it offers a high-quality framework.
	I hope that parents will retain confidence in a system that sets out to ensure that pupils can reap the benefits of school visits without coming to harm. It goes without saying that my officials will look carefully at the findings of the inquiries that have been set up, and that we will update our guidance if we find that there are lessons to learn.
	On the specific subject of school sports days, I wish to refer to the excellent work carried out by the British Association of Advisers and Lecturers in Physical Education. Its booklet, Safe Practice in Physical Education, contains a wealth of helpful advice to schools about how to ensure that children can take part in all forms of physical education safely. The advice is based on accepted good practice arising from experience in the field, and I know that physical education teachers all over the country find it helpful and informative.
	Another good practice guide produced by the Department for Education and Skills provides comprehensive guidance on the design of school groundsa matter that may be relevant in this case. The guidance includes planning advice for sports facilities, and covers issues such as cordoning-off areas for field events that involve throwing, and providing safety cages for hammer and discus events. All measures should be designed to enable activities to take place in a safe and secure environment, but without placing unnecessary restrictions on participation.
	My hon. Friend highlighted a number of important issues in her contribution to this debate. I hope that she feels that the Government take such concerns seriously. As I have said throughout, we are committed to learning all relevant lessons from specific incidents that result in injury, or worse, to young people. I should be grateful for any contribution that my hon. Friend feels she can make to ensure that we learn the lessons from the incident that she has described, and from more general concerns.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at four minutes past Eleven o'clock.